















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* 




i 


/ 



9 

























% 




\ 











































































































' • \ 






















































































































































TESTIMONY IN RE 
THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL . 

' -V v \ , ON THE 

REFERENCE OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND THE DOMINION 
OF CANADA UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE 
TREATY OF MAY 5, 1910 ’ 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1913 














INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION 

TESTIMONY IN RE 
THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL 

ON THE 

REFERENCE OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND THE DOMINION 
OF CANADA UNDER ARTICLE IX OF THE 
TREATY OF MAY 5, 1910 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1913 







INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. 


United States. 

JAMES A. TAWNEY, Chairman. 
FRANK S. STREETER. 
GEORGE TURNER. 


L. White Busbey, Secretary . 

2 


Canada. 

TH. CHASE CASGRAIN Chairman. 
HENRY A. POWELL. 

CHARLES A. MAGRATH. 


Lawrence J. Burpee, Secretary . 


0, OF D. 
JUN 2 1913 


4 








QUESTIONS REFERRED. 


“1. Under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding the navigation and 
other uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on either side 
of the international boundary, is the erection of any dike or other compensatory 
work deemed necessary or desirable for the improvement or safety of navigation at 
or in the vicinity of Bois Blanc Island in connection with rock excavation and dredg¬ 
ing in Livingstone Channel authorized by the rivers and harbors act of June 25,1910 
(36 Stats., 655), and described in House Document No. 676, Sixty-first Congress, second 
session, sundry civil act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 729), sundry civil act of March 4, 
1911 (36 Stats., 1405), of the United States, and now being carried out by the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States? 

“2. If in answer to question 1 any dike or other compensatory works are found to 
be necessary or desirable, will the work or works proposed by the United States and 
provided for in the rivers and harbors actof June 25,1910 (36 Stats., 655), and located so 
as to connect the north end of Bois Blanc Island to the southeast end of the existing 
cofferdam on the east side of Livingstone Channel opposite and below Stoney Island, 
be sufficient for the purpose; and if not, what additional or other dikes or compen¬ 
satory works should be constructed and where should they be located in order to 
serve most advantageously the interests involved on both sides of the international 
boundary? ” 


V 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


The commission met in the Federal Court Building, city of Detroit, 
at 10 o’clock a. m., February 17, 1913. 

Present: James A. Tawney (presiding); Th. Chase Casgrain, K. C.; 
Frank S. Streeter; Henry A. Powell, K. C.; Charles A. Magrath, and 
George Turner. L. White Busbey and Lawrence J. Burpee, secre¬ 
taries. 

APPEARANCES. 

For the United States: Peeves P. Strickland, assistant to the 
Attorney General of the United States. 

For Canada: W. P. White, K. C.; Charles S. Maclnnes, K. C. 

For the Province of Ontario: G. Lynch Staunton, K. C. 

For the town of Amherstburg: F. A. Hough. 

For the Windsor & Detroit Ferry Co.: A. P. Bartlett. 

For the county of Essex: F. D. Davis. 

For the township of Malden: J. H. Rodd. 

For the Dominion Marine Association and shipping interests of 
Canada: Francis King. 

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN. 

Mr. Tawney (chairman). Before proceeding with the business 
before the commission at this meeting, it may be of interest, and 
possibly instructive, to briefly state the origin and purpose of the 
International Joint Commission, and the scope of its power and 
jurisdiction. 

The people inhabiting this continent have the same common 
fountain of law, the same traditions, and similar institutions of 
government, but they live under two distinct and separate govern¬ 
mental jurisdictions. They are responsible and owe allegiance to 
two separate and distinct sovereignties—Great Britain and the 
United States. 

The line that marks the boundary between these two governmental 
jurisdictions extends across the continent, from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific, a distance of more than 3,500 miles. At least 2,000 miles of 
this boundary is marked by navigable and nonnavigable waters, with 
an aggregate population inhabiting the shores of these waters of 
approximately six and a half millions of people. These waters are 
the common property of the people of botn countries. The right to 
their use for sanitation and domestic purposes, for navigation and 
irrigation, for power purposes, or for any other lawful purpose is a 
right which the inhabitants of the two countries enjoy in common. 
In the exercise of this common property right, or in the use of this 

5 



6 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


common property, controversies between the inhabitants of the 
United States and Canada have arisen iff the past, are now pending, 
and as the demand for the use of these boundary waters for these 
purposes increases with the increase of population along the boundary, 
these controversies will continue to arise and increase in number. 
Then, too, other questions of difference between these two Govern¬ 
ments, due to the close industrial and commercial relations existing 
between them may, and naturally will, occasion controversies of a 
more or less serious character with no other means for their peaceable 
settlement than that afforded by the ordinary diplomatic channels, 
which experience during the last century has proved dilatory and 
unsatisfactory, and in the settlement of these controversies the 
inhabitants of neither country have had an opportunity to person¬ 
ally appear and present their side of the controversy. 

Actuated by that spirit of progress, that sense of fair dealing, and 
the desire to peaceably settle all international controversies which 
has characterized the Anglo-Saxon race for more than a century, 
Great Britain and the United States negotiated and proclaimed the 
treaty of January 11, 1909, for the purpose of creating an inter¬ 
national tribunal before which both the Governments and the 
inhabitants of the two countries might appear and make application 
for the approval by this international tribunal of contemplated pro¬ 
jects for the use of these boundary waters; affording also to those on 
the other side of the line affected injuriously or otherwise by such 
proposed use, the right to appear and be heard with reference to such 
proposed approval. To carry out this purpose and to make the tri¬ 
bunal an efficient international organization for the settlement of such 
controversies as I have referred to, the two Governments by this 
treaty clothed this tribunal with judicial power and final jurisdiction 
in certain cases, and with investigative jurisdiction only, in other 
cases. To guide this commission as well as the inhabitants of both 
countries, the treaty not only defines the jurisdiction of the commis¬ 
sion but also defines what are boundary waters, as follows: 

For the purpose of this treaty, boundary waters are defined as the waters from the 
main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways, or the 
portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the United States 
and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms, and inlets thereof, but 
not including tributary waters which in their natural channels would flow from such 
lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary. 

Recognizing that water is probably the greatest asset possessed by 
any country; that the important chain of waters thus defined as 
boundary waters are the common property of both Canada and the 
United States, and that the right to their use is a right enjoyed in 
common by the inhabitants thereof, and that the highest form of 
development cannot be had in either country without the full and 
proper cooperation of the other, the two Governments in Article III 
of this treaty have agreed that no further obstruction or diversion of 
these waters should be permitted except upon the authority of the 
United States or of the Dominion of Canada within their respective 
jurisdictions, and then only with the approval of this International 
Joint Commission, which commission does not represent either the 
Government or the people on either side of the boundary alone, but 
represents both Governments and the people of both Governments 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 7 

as such. The first paragraph of the article referred to reads as 
follows: 

It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions heretofore 
permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement between the parties hereto, 
no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether temporary or perma¬ 
nent, of the boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting the natural level or 
flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall be made except by author¬ 
ity of the United States or the Dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdic¬ 
tions and with the approval, as hereinafter provided, of a joint commission, to be 
known as the International Joint Commission. 

The two Governments, recognizing their independent jurisdictions 
within their own territorial limits and the right of either to permit 
the construction and maintenance within their respective jurisdictions 
of any remedial or protective works or any dams or other obstructions 
of waters flowing from boundary waters or in waters at a lower level 
than the boundary in rivers flowing across the boundary, which might 
raise the level of waters on the other side of the boundary, expressly 
provided by Article IV of the treaty that such remedial or protective 
works or dams should not be permitted on either side of the line with¬ 
out the approval of the International Joint Commission, and for that 
purpose they agreed to Article IV, the first paragraph of which reads 
as follows: 

The High Contracting Parties agree that, except in cases provided for by special 
agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or maintenance on 
their respective sides of the boundary of any remedial or protective works or any 
dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from boundary waters or in waters at a 
lower level than the boundary in rivers flowing across the boundary, the effect of 
which is to raise the natural level of waters on the other side of the boundary unless 
the construction or maintenance thereof is approved by the aforesaid International 
Joint Commission. 

In order that the questions raised under Articles III and IV might 
be finally and conclusively disposed of by the International Joint 
Commission, the treaty provides that the commission shall have 
jurisdiction over and pass upon all cases involving the use, obstruction, 
or diversion of the waters with respect to which under Articles III 
and IV of the treaty the approval of the commission is required, and 
that a majority of the commission shall have power to render a final 
decision in such cases. 

In addition to the final jurisdiction thus conferred upon the com¬ 
mission in all cases arising under Articles III and IV, Article X of 
the treaty also clothes the commission with final jurisdiction over 
all questions or matters of difference arising between the Dominion 
of Canada and the United States, either in relation to each other or 
in relation to their respective inhabitants, when such questions are 
referred to the commission for decision by the consent of both Gov¬ 
ernments, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United 
States and with the advice and consent on the part of His Majesty’s 
Government, given by the governor general in council. The ques¬ 
tions which may be submitted under Article X for final decision by 
the commission, or the nature of the controversies or matters of dif¬ 
ference between the two Governments, that may be thus submitted, 
are not specified. Any question therefore, whether involving 
national honor or vital interest, may be submitted to this commission 
under the provisions of this article, and the decision of the commission 
is binding upon both Governments. 


8 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


The two Governments, however, by the terms of Article IX of the 
treaty, reserved to themselves the right to finally determine questions 
of difference between them which are not included in Articles III 
and IV of the treaty or which are not referred under Article X, and 
for the purpose of enabling the high contracting parties to reach a 
final determination of such questions with greater facility and with 
foreknowledge of the facts they clothed this commission with power 
to investigate all other questions or matters of difference arising 
between them involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either 
in relation to the other or of the inhabitants of the other along the 
common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of 
Canada, and specially provided that such questions shall be 
referred from time to time to this commission for examination and 
report when either Government shall request that such questions or 
matters of difference be so referred. It is under Article IX that the 
question has been referred to the commission by both Governments, 
that we are here for the purpose of investigating. The exact form 
of the question thus referred to the commission by both Governments 
is as follows: 

1. Under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding the navigation and 
other uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on either side 
of the international boundary, is the erection of any dike or other compensatory work 
deemed necessary or desirable for the improvement or safety of navigation at or in 
the vicinity of Bois Blanc Island in connection with the rock excavation and dredg¬ 
ing in Livingstone Channel authorized by the river and harbor act of June 25, 1910, 
and now being carried out by the Government of the United States? 

2. If in answer to question 1 any dike or other compensatory works are found to be 
necessary or desirable, will the work or works proposed by the United States and 
provided for in the river and harbor act of June 25, 1910, and located so as to connect 
the north end of Bois Blanc Island to the southeast end of the existing cofferdam on 
the east side of Livingstone Channel, opposite and below Stoney Island, be sufficient 
for the purpose; and if not, what additional or other dikes or compensatory works 
should be constructed and where should they be located in order to serve most advan¬ 
tageously the interests involved on both sides of the international boundary? 

By the terms of the reference and under the provisions of Article 
IX of the treaty the commission in this case is therefore authorized 
and directed to examine into and report upon the facts and circum¬ 
stances of the question thus referred, together with such conclusions 
and recommendations as the commission may deem appropriate. 
The report of this commission upon this question, like all other 
reports made by the commission under Article IX, will not be re¬ 
garded as a decision of the question submitted either on the facts or 
the law, nor will it have in any way the character of an arbitral 
award. When the report is finally submitted with the recommen¬ 
dations of the commission, the same will then be taken up and dis¬ 
posed of directly by agreement between the two Governments. It 
will be seen, therefore, that in the settlement of international disa¬ 
greements or controversies through the peaceful agency of an inter¬ 
national tribunal composed of citizens or the inhabitants of both 
countries Great Britain and the United States have not only taken 
an advanced position in the settlement of such controversies arising 
between them by peaceful agencies, but that the tribunal thus 
created for this purpose is unique and the only tribunal that has 
ever been created by two nations for this purpose. It is the only 
tribunal in the world where the inhabitants of two countries have an 
equal opportunity to appear and have the extent of their common 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


9 


right to the use of their common property adjudicated and finally 
determined. 

In view of the extent to which the boundary between the Dominion 
of Canada and the United States is marked by navigable and non- 
navigable waters, and in view of the value of the use of these waters 
for domestic and sanitary purposes, for irrigation and navigation, 
and for power purposes, and in view of the constantly increasing 
demand tor the use of these waters for these purposes, the existence 
of a tribunal like this in which the inhabitants on both sides of the 
line have an equal opportunity to appear and make application for 
international approval of their projects proposed in contemplation of 
such use, neither the necessity nor the wisdom of creating an inter¬ 
national joint commission of this kind can be questioned by any one 
who desires to maintain and continue the century of peace between 
the two great English-speaking nations, which is soon to be cele¬ 
brated in both Canada and the United States on the one hundredth 
anniversary of the Treaty of Ghent. 

























LETTER OF REFERENCE. 


By direction of the chairman, Mr. Burpee (secretary) read the 
following: 

British Embassy, 
Washington, October 16, 1912. 

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that at the request of the Government of the 
United States and of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, under the provisions 
of Article IX of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great 
Britain, the questions or matters of difference set forth below, which have arisen 
between them, involving the rights, obligations, or interests of each in relation to 
the other, or to the inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier between the 
United States and the Dominion of Canada, are hereby referred to the International 
Joint Commission for examination and report upon the facts and circumstances of 
the particular questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and 
recommendations as may be appropriate. 

The questions so referred are as follows, namely: 

(1) Under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding the navigation and 
other uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on either side 
of the international boundary, is the erection of any dike or other compensatory 
work deemed necessary or desirable for the improvement or safety of navigation at 
or in the vicinity of Bois Blanc Island in connection with rock excavation and dredg¬ 
ing in Livingstone Channel, authorized by the river and harbor act of June 25, 1910 
(36 Stats., 655), and desciibed in House Document 676, Sixty-first Congress, second 
session, sundry civil act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 729), sundry civil act of March 
4,1911 (36 Stats., 1405), of the United States, and now being carried out by the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States? 

(2) If in answer to Question (1) any dike or other compensatory works are foimd to 
be necessary or desirable, will the work or works proposed by the United States and 
provided for in the river and harbor act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 655), and located 
so as to connect the north end 'f Bois Blanc Island to the southeast end of thn existing 
cofferdam cn the east side of Livingstone Channel, opposite and below Stoney Island, 
be sufficient for the purpose; and if not, what additional or other dikes or compensa¬ 
tory works should be constructed and where should they be located in order to serve 
most advantageously the interests involved un both sides of the international 
boundary? 

I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servant (for the ambassador), 

A. Clark Kerr. 


Department of State, 

Washington , October 16, 1912. 
To the International Joint Commission*>of the United States and Canada. 

Gentlemen: I have the honor to inform you that, at the joint request of the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States and of the Government of the Dominion of Canada, 
under the provisions of Article IX of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between the 
United States and Great Britain, the questions or matters of difference set forth below— 
which have arisen between them involving the rights, obligations, or interests of each 
in relation to the other, or to the inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier 
between the United States and the Dominion of Canada—are hereby referred to the 
International Joint Commission for examination and report upon the facts and cir¬ 
cumstances of the particular questions and matters referred, together with such 
conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate. 

The questions so referred are as follows: | 

1. Under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding the navigation and 
other uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on either side 

11 




12 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


of the international boundary, is the erection of any dike or other compensatory 
work deemed necessary or desirable for the improvement or safety of navigation 
at or in the vicinity of Bois Blanc Island, in connection with rock excavation and 
dredging in Livingstone Channel authorized by the river and harbor act of June 
25, 1910 (36 Stats., 655), and described in House Document 676, Sixty-first Con¬ 
gress, second session, sundry civil act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 729), sundry civil 
act of March 4, 1911 (36 Stats., 1405), of the United States, and now being carried 
out by the Government of the United States? 

2. If, in answer to question 1, any dike or other compensatory works are found 
to be necessary or desirable, will the work or works proposed by the United States 
and provided for in the river and harbor act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 655), and 
located so as to connect the north end of Bois Blanc Island to the southeast end of 
the existing cofferdam on the east side of Livingstone Channel, opposite and below 
Stoney Island, be sufficient for the purpose; and if not, what additional or other 
dikes or compensatory works should be constructed and where should they be 
located in order to serve most advantageously the interests involved on both sides 
of the international boundary? 

I have the honor to add that the Government of the United States will be glad to 
assist the commission in obtaining any information which it may desire in the course 
of its investigation of the matters herein referred for its examination and report. 

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 

Alvey A. Adee, 

Acting Secretary of State. 

Mr. Tawney. After conferring with my associates, with regard to 
the manner of proceeding, it was deemed best, in view of the fact 
that the Government of the United States proposes this improvement- 
in the Detroit River for the benefit of navigation on both sides, that 
that side of the question should be presented first, and that then 
those who are opposed to this improvement should be heard. In that 
way, the Commission will arrive at the point of conflict between the 
parties to this proceeding and the investigation can be confined to 
what may be called the real issue between the two Governments. It 
is for that reason we would suggest, the Government of the United 
States having proposed that which has since been opposed by the 
Government of Canada, that the case of the Government of the 
United States should be first heard. Then, those who wish to present 
their objections may do so, and we will then have the point of con¬ 
flict out between the two Governments and the inhabitants of the 
two countries. 

Mr. White, K. C. I wish, at this stage, to file a memorandum 
which is not in the way of, argument or a presentation of our case at 
all, but which indicates the position of Canada in this proceeding. It 
is because the Dominion of Canada occupies a unique position in 
connection with this that I wish now to file this memorandum. It is 
not in any sense a controversy between the two Governments. It 
is a question in which the.whole people of both countries and the 
dwellers along both sides of the lakes particularly are deeply inter¬ 
ested. We would therefore like the opportunity of reading this mem¬ 
orandum now, not as an argument, but simply as explaining our 
position with regard to the matter. The reading of this memorandum 
now may have some bearing upon the scope of the inquiry. 

Mr. Tawney. Very well, Mr. White, you may proceed. 


i 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


13 


STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF CANADA. 

Mr. White, K. C., then read the following statement on behalf of 
Canada: 

MEMORANDUM RE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL DIKE. 

The Canadian Government has been advised that the government 
of the Province of Ontario is to be represented by counsel at this 
hearing, and as it is the only Province of Canada bordering on the 
Great Lakes and Lake of the Woods systems, its interests and rights 
are of paramount importance and no doubt will receive the consid¬ 
eration they deserve. 

The Canadian Government is also aware that representations have 
been made to the International Joint Commission, in opposition to 
the proposed structure, by citizens of Amherstburg and vicinity. It 
understands that these citizens are represented by counsel, and it 
feels confident that the commission will give the fullest considera¬ 
tion to their claims. 

The interest of the Canadian people in the development and 
improvement of the international waterway is evidenced by the fact 
that in the building and improvement of the canal system, and in 
river, lake, and harbor improvements upon this system, Canada has 
already expended not less than the sum of $197,464,159. and, further, 
large expenditures for like purposes are now in contemplation. 

The Canadian Government is thus in complete sympathy with the 
desire of the Government of the United States to improve in every 
possible way the navigation of international waters, from Lake Supe¬ 
rior eastward, including that portion of the Detroit River now before 
the commission for consideration, and in this, as in all other mat¬ 
ters of common concern, it wishes to cooperate to the fullest extent 
possible with the Government of the United States. 

It is firmly convinced, however, that a piecemeal policy in the 
development of navigation and other mutual interests on boundary 
waters is not to the ultimate advantage of the two countries; that 
until reports are received from investigations into the proposal to 
construct a submerged wen* in the Niagara River for the purpose of 
raising the level of Lake Erie 6 or more inches, as well as from other 
investigations; or while diversions from Lake Michigan, even though 
unauthorized, are seriously affecting the levels of the Great Lakes, 
the connecting waterways, and the St. Lawrence River, it would 
appear undesirable at the present time for either Government to 
commit itself to a policy of compensatory works at individual points 
in the interested waters until some definite conclusion is reached as 
tb the extent to which diversions from Lake Michigan are to take 
place. « 

It appears from the report of the Chief of Engineers, United States 
Army, dated the 23d January, 1911, that the diversion from Lake 
Michigan at Chicago then amounted to about 7,000 cubic feet per 
second, or 3,000 cubic feet per second in excess of the permit of the 
Secretary of War. It is understood that this large diversion still 
continues and is even believed to be oxceeded. 


14 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


The situation developed is as follows: 

Chicago’s diversion from Lake Michigan. 


Amount of water extracted. 

Effect on depth at— 

Head of Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel. 

Lake St. Clair. 

3,000 c. f. s. 

Decrease from 1.20 to 1.60 
inches. 

Decrease from 3.27 to 4.20 
inches. 

Decrease from 1.60 to 1.85 
inches. 

Decrease from 4.26 to 4.93 
inches. 

8,000 c. f. s. 



Compensating works on Detroit River . 



Effect on depth at— 

Character of work. 

Head of Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel. 

Lake St. Clair. 

Construction of Livingstone Channel. 

Decrease, 1.44 inches. 

Decrease, 0.80 inch. 

Increase, 1.08 inches. 

Construction of Bois Blanc Dike with 300- 

Increase, 2.88 inches. 

foot, opening. 

Advantage gained by new channel and dike. 

Increase, 1.44 inches. 

Increase, 0.28 inch. 



It will be observed from the above tables that the proposed com¬ 
pensatory works will just about restore to the stream at the head of 
Livingstone Channel and will not restore to Lake St. Clair what was 
lost by deepening and an excess diversion of even 3,000 c. f. s. 

It therefore appears that “the desirability of the improvements” 
as expressed in the reference is, under the existing conditions, open 
to serious question, unless the wider problem is also to receive nec¬ 
essary attention without delay; and the Canadian Government invites 
the consideration of the commission to this phase of the matter. 

In presenting the foregoing views the Canadian Government decides 
to emphasize the fact that it is actuated solely by a sincere desire for 
the development of the entire system of waterways in the best inter¬ 
ests of the people of the two countries, and though Canada in this 
particular case is not called upon to bear any part of the cost of the 
proposed work, it must be remembered that there are other vital 
points in these international waters, the efficiency of which, now 
seriously impaired by what appears to be an uncontrolled depletion 
elsewhere, can not be improved by works of a compensatory char¬ 
acter so as to yield the greatest results while the present situation 
at Chicago exists. 

February 17, 1913. 

Wm. B,. White. 

C. S. MacInnes, 

Counsel for the Government of Canada . 




















THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


15 


Mr. Tawney. The two Governments have limited the investigation 
to the proposed improvements of the Livingstone Channel m the 
interests of international navigation, and in the investigation it would 
be necessary for the commission to keep as near as possible within 
the exact questions which the two Governments have submitted, 
and to confine our reports to those specific questions. We can not 
go outside the authority or the reference to the commission by both 
Governments. 

Mr. White. We understand that fully, but we think we will be able 
to show you by argument later in that the question submitted by us 
is important. 

Mr. Tawney. I wished just to mention the limitation which the 
two Governments have placed on the activities of the commission 
in this investigation. 

Mr. White. We have considered that. 

Mr. Strickland. We will proceed with our side now and take the 
testimony of witnesses. 

Mr. Casgrain. We will proceed to hear the United States, under 
reserve of the memorandum which you have put before the com¬ 
mission, Mr. White, on behalf of the Dominion Government. 

Mr. White. I understand so. 


TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 


TESTIMONY OF COI. MASON M. PATRICK, LIEUTENANT COLONEL, 
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

Col. Mason M. Patrick, a witness produced on behalf of the United 
States, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Mr. Strickland. You reside in Detroit? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. You have charge of all river and harbor improve¬ 
ments in this district for the United States? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. Including Livingstone Channel? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. Are you acquainted with the conditions, through 
records, statistics, or otherwise, concerning the flow of water in the 
locality of Stony Island, down to and around Bois Blanc Island, prior 
to any changes made in connection with the creation of the Living¬ 
stone Channel, including the level of the Detroit River and flow of 
currents ? 

Col. Patrick. As shown by the record I have; I am quite familiar 
with the flow of waters in these channels. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you thoroughly examined the Livingstone 
Channel, from above Stony Island to below Bois Blanc Island, the 
Amherstburg Channel, and the currents and flow of the waters in these 
channels, and outside of the same, from main shore to main shore, 
since the Livingstone channel has been made ? 

Col. Patrick. I have personally seen and examined all of the 
channels and, in addition, had a number of observations taken by 
my assistants and their reports rendered to me. 

Mr. Strickland. Please state whether, in your opinion, the creation 
of said channel has made any particular difference in the Detroit 
River or changed the natural flow at or in the vicinity of Stony 
Island, Bois Blanc Island, or Amherstburg ? 

Col. Patrick. To answer that question, as I think it should be 
answered, makes necessary a description of the conditions that exist 
in the vicinity of Amherstburg, and the various channels that pass 
by there. 

Mr. Strickland. Will you kindly give them ? 

Col. Patrick. I think I would like to make reference to the chart 
if I may; it may explain things a little bit better. Answering your 
question: The Detroit River is about 31 miles long,flowing, of course, 
between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. In the upper 13 miles of 
its length, down to about the head of Fighting Island, the water 
flows practically in one channel, except near its head, of course, where 
there are two islands, Belle Isle and Isle au Peche. From the head 
of Fighting Island to Lake Erie, 18 miles, the river flows through a 
16 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


17 


number of different channels, divided from each other by islands, the 
larger ones being Fighting Island and Grosse Isle, and a number of 
smaller islands in the same vicinity. The traffic which passes up and 
down the Detroit River for a number of years was confined to a 
channel along the Canadian shore in the vicinity of Amherstburg 
and below the localities known as Ballards Reef and Limekiln Cross¬ 
ing. Some years ago, in order to provide for safer navigation in this 
congested part of the river, the United States made provision for a 
separate channel, beginning at about Stoney Island and leading to the 
westward of Bois Blanc Island to Lake Erie. 

Mr. Tawney. When did that occur? 

Col. Patrick. About 1906. This channel, known as the Living¬ 
stone Channel, was finally completed in the year 1912 and opened to 
navigation on the 19th of October of that year. It was intended to 
provide for down-bound traffic, and all, or practically all, up-bound 
traffic was to be restricted to the older channel near Amherstburg 
The original project for the Livingstone Channel provided for a width 
of 300 feet. Much of the channel was excavated through solid rock, 
and the channel crosses the Limekiln Reef at a point where originally 
there was a depth of about only 4 feet of water. The channel has 
been excavated to a depth of about 23 feet and for a considerable por¬ 
tion of its length its sides are solid rock. About 1909, while the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel was being excavated, there was a demand or a plea 
on the part of shippers to provide a channel wider than 300 feet, and 
this matter was considered by a special board of engineers. The 
board reported that the needs of navigation were sufficient to make 
it proper for the United States to widen this 300-foot channel to a 
width of 450 feet. Wherever a stream such as the Detroit River 
flows through a number of different channels, any work done in one 
of these separate outlets, broadly speaking, will probably have some 
effect upon the flow through the other channels. The effect of the 
opening of the Livingstone Channel to a width of 450 feet was care¬ 
fully considered by tins board of engineers, and it was their opinion 
that if so opened, unless some means were employed to compensate 
for the additional flow through the wider channel, there would inevi¬ 
tably be a lowering of the water above and that lowering would extend 
over the entire lake system above tins part of the Detroit River, 
excluding, of course, Lake Superior. The board then recommended 
that to provide for this wider channel there should be a dam con¬ 
structed from the southeast corner of the Livingstone Channel coffer¬ 
dam to the head of Bois Blanc Island. In addition to compensating 
for the increased discharge, this dam was to fulfill another function 
which, in the opinion of the board, was deemed quite important. 

A little below Limekiln Crossing the water flowing between the 
Livingstone Channel and the main shore of Canada divides and part 
of it flows to the westward of Bois Blanc Island and part flows close 
along the Canadian shore. The water which passes between the 
Livingstone Channel and Bois Blanc Island strikes the Livingstone 
Channel a short distance below that portion of it which was con¬ 
structed inside of the cofferdam, and this current across the head of 
Bois Blanc Island gives a cross current or is a cross current in the 
Livingstone Channel, and, in the opinion of the board, it might be 
found that this cross current was dangerous to navigation, so that 
86342—13-2 


18 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


the dam, in addition to providing compensation, was to provide for 
the cutting off of the cross current. 

Mr. Casgrain. How wide is the channel now ? 

Col. Patrick. The Livingstone Channel now, in that portion about 
1 mile long which was constructed inside the cofferdam, is 450 feet 
wide. Below the portion constructed in the cofferdam the channel 
is still restricted to its original width of 300 feet. 

Mr. Tawney. Is the width at both ends of the cofferdam now 450 
feet ? 

Col. Patrick. The width of the completed channel, at both ends 
of the cofferdam, is 450 feet, but, as opposition arose to the construc¬ 
tion of this compensating dam, and as it was apparent to the engi¬ 
neers that the opening of the channel to its full width would produce 
a lowering without the dam, the ostensible width, even in the 450-foot 
section, has been restricted to 300 feet. In other words, without the 
dam, we have been unable to open the channel to the width of 450 
feet to which it is completed. 

Mr. Strickland. In your opinion, taking into consideration all the 
circumstances surrounding this channel, it is necessary to erect a 
dam between the cofferdam and Bois Blanc Island to correct the 
currents and flow of the river? 

Col. Patrick. To answer that question it is necessary to refer to 
certain discharge measurements and level observations which have 
been taken by my direction, and some of which have been taken by 
direction of my predecessor in office. The question of the flow of 
waters through a number of channels such as those that exist in the 
Detroit River is a somewhat complicated one, but there have been, 
I think, a sufficient number of observations made to determine what 
has been the effect of the Livingstone Channel, as now constructed, 
and to afford a basis for prediction as to what will be the effect if the 
channel is opened to a greater width. The cofferdam, within which 
about 1 mile of the Livingstone Channel was constructed, was in 
place from about 1909 to the middle of 1912. As evidence of the 
truth of the statement I made before, that any alteration in the nat¬ 
ural regime is generally refracted in the waters above, the observa¬ 
tions during these years show distinctly that by shutting off the natu¬ 
ral flow through the part of the river in which the Livingstone Channel 
was constructed there had been a very marked rise in the water sur¬ 
faces above. It was shown that this rise extended measurably up to 
Lake St. Clair and probably, had measurements been taken further, 
it might have been shown to be measurable even up to Lake Huron 
and farther. After the Livingstone Channel was opened last June, 
the conditions of course were changed in this part of the river, and 
the flow of water passed through the completed channel and over that 
part of the river which had been obstructed by the cofferdam. 
There have been a number of measurements made of the discharges 
of the different channels. As the levels of the Lakes are changing 
constantly, it is quite improbable that any two independent meas¬ 
urements could agree exactly, but it is a reasonable assumption that 
within limits the flow of water through the several channels, or, 
rather, that about the same percentage of water will flow through the 
several channels. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


19 


Mr. Tawney. What about the level of the water above the coffer¬ 
dam and in the lake, prior to the construction of the dam, and the 
level since the dam has been opened to the extent of 300 feet. 

Col. Patrick. I am just getting to that. For instance, in the latter 
part of last year, after the dam was opened, I had a number of dis¬ 
charge measurements made. It so happened that the Canadian 
authorities had a number of discharge observations made, but we 
made our observations absolutely independent of each other; they 
used their methods and we used ours. My total flow in the stream 
when I took the measurements was 197,000 cubic feet per second, and 
when the Canadians took their measurement, the flow was about 
205,000 cubic feet per second. When seeking different channels, 
I find that the percentage of the flow through the channels, as I de¬ 
termined it, and the percentage determined by the Canadians, is so 
closely in accord, that it shows quite clearly that these channels would 
carry the same water flow, no matter what the discharge of the river. 
For instance, the following will show thb percentages as found by the 
measurements: 



Percentage of flow. 

By United 
States, 
December, 
1912. 

By Canada, 
September, 
1912. 

Grosse Isle, Mich. 

23.3 

6.8 

18.1 

51.8 

22.2 

6.4 

18.6 

52.8 

Grosse Isle, Stony Island. 

Livingstone Channel. 

Limekiln Crossing. 


100.0 

100.0 


The discharge through Limekiln Crossing Channel now enters Lake 
Erie via the two channels—Bois Blanc Island, Canada, and Bois Blanc 
Cofferdam. The portion of this discharge that is carried by each of 
these channels we found, by independent measurements, to be as 
follows: 



By United States. 

By Canada, 
September, 
1912. 

October, 

1912. 

December, 

1912. 

Bois Blanc Island Canada Channel.... 

Per cent. 
58.3 
41.7 

Per cent. 
58.6 

41.4 

Per cent. 
60.4 
39.6 

Bois Blanc Island Cofferdam Channel........ 


100.0 

100.0 

100.0 























20 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Applying the above (United States) percentage to the mean dis¬ 
charge of the river, 204,000 second-feet (Report International Water¬ 
ways Commission, p. 102), we have the following results: 



Discharge. 

Percentage 
of flow. 

Velocities 
(feet per 
second). 

Grosse Isle, Mich. 

47,500 
13,800 
37,000 
105,700 

23.3 

1.77 

Grosse Isle, Stoney Island. 

6.8 

1.80 

Livingstone Channel.. 

18.1 

3.49 

Limekiln Crossing. 

51.8 

2.77 


Total. 

204,000 

100.0 




Bois Blanc, Canada. 

61,600 
44,100 

58.3 

2.54 

Bois Blanc Dam. 

41.7 

1.10 



Careful calculations have been made to determine the piobable 
effect of a dam such as that proposed between the cofferdam and 
Bois Blanc Island, such a dam to have in it an opening about 300 
feet wide to serve such navigation as may desire to pass between 
Amherstbuig and points to the west of the island. Without burden¬ 
ing the record with the details of the calculations, the results are as 
follows, the predicted percentage of flow being applied to the mean 
discharge as above. 


Predicted discharge with dam in place. 



Livingstone Channel, 300 feet 
wide. 

Livingstone Channel, 450 feet 
wide. 

Dis¬ 

charge. 

Percent¬ 

age. 

Velocity. 

Dis¬ 

charge. 

Percent¬ 

age. 

Velocity. 

Grosse Isle, Mich. 

50,200 

24.6 

1.87 

49,000 

24.0 

1.83 

Grosse Isle, Stoney Island. 

15,700 

7.7 

2.07 

15,000 

7.0 

1.98 

Livingstone Channel. 

47,900 

23.5 

4.52 

52,600 

25.9 

4.35 

Limekiln Crossing. 

90,200 

44.2 

2.36 

87,400 

43.1 

2.29 

Total. 

204,000 

100.0 


204,000 

100.0 







Bois Blanc, Canada. 

78,500 

87.0 

3.24 

76,034 

87.0 

3.14 

300-foot opening in dam. 

11,700 

13.0 

3.24 

11,362 

13.0 

3.14 

Total. 

90,200 

100.0 


87,396 

100.0 








The net result, as shown by the above tables, is an increased flow 
by Amhex'stburg of 17,000 second-feet for the present opening in the 
Livingstone Channel with an increase of velocity in this vicinity of 
approximately one-half (0.49) miles per hour, and for the Living¬ 
stone Channel 450 feet wide these quantities become 14,400 second- 
feet and approximately 0.43 miles per hour. It should be noted that 
while the discharge and velocity in the vicinity of Amherstbuig are 
increased as above, there will be a lessened discharge and a lessened 
velocity over Limekiln Crossing. 

A long series of observations has been made upon the levels of the 
Lakes and upon the gauge relations in this part of the outlet of Lake 
St. Clair. I have platted on this map, which I will file with the 
commissioners, a series of the actual observations made upon the 











































THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 21 

slope prior to the building of the Livingstone Channel, and have 
shown here—perhaps I had better explain it on this chart. 

(Col. Patrick then proceeded to the bench and explained to the 
commissioners the chart.) 

It was found during 1903 that when the Amherstburg gauge was 
572.81, at Mamajuda, some few miles above, the level of the water 
surface wmuld have been about 574.28 or a fall of about 1.4 feet level. 
That was before the dam was put in place. With the dam in place, 
the difference, taking the same two points, would have been 1.6 feet; 
that was some miles abo\e. When we came down to the gauges 
somewhat closer to the dam itself and to Amherstburg, the difference 
became quite marked. At Ouelletes, which is just about the head 
of the channel and of course where the dam would have its greatest 
effect, during the time the dam was in place the fall from Ouelletes 
and down to Amherstburg, which is roughly 3 miles—the differ¬ 
ence of level was about 1.3 feet, while the dam was in place, and prior 
to the dam being put in place the difference was only about 0.9 of a 
foot. In other words, there was a rise of 0.4 of a foot. At the 
Limekiln Crossing, which is below the location of the dam, the con¬ 
struction of the dam itself raised the water there above what it would 
otherwise have been, only about 0.14 of a foot. 

After we took away the dam we had a number of observations made 
and we show positively that the condition of flow in the channel has 
been very nearly restored to just what it was before any work was 
done there at all. It would take a long series of observations to decide 
exactly what had happened, but from such measurements as we have 
been able to make since the dam was taken out we find that there has 
been a slight fall in the water stretches at Ouelletes and a slight fall 
also at Limekiln, and at Mamajuda there has been a slight fall also. 
In other words, the opening of the Livingstone Channel now has very 
little effect upon the regime of these channels, but if it had any at all 
the evidence seems to indicate that it has produced a slight lowering 
of the water surface above and that such lowering would increase the 
slope from Lake St. Clair down to this point [indicating]. The greater 
flow out of Lake St. Clair will result in a diminution of the level of Lake 
St. Clair, but that diminution is only about 1 inch according to our 
best measurements, and is practically inappreciable. 

If subsequent measurements should show that that diminution of 
levels had been greater, it would make more apparent than it is at 
present the necessity for compensating for the Livingstone Channel 
as it now is. If we open the Livingstone Channel to 450 feet, there 
will be a greater fall at these gauges, and consequently a greater slope 
from Lake St. Clair down to this point, a greater discharge there, and 
a greater diminution of level above. To answer specifically, I believe 
that it is desirable that even with the present opening in the Livingstone 
Channel there should be a dam put in place in order that it may com¬ 
pensate for the probable increased flow, and I am perfectly satisfied 
that if the Livingstone Channel be opened to its greater width of 450 
feet the dam will be absolutely necessary, or, rather, such compen¬ 
sation will be absolutely necessary. 

It is freely admitted that that compensation can be provided else¬ 
where than between Livingstone Channel and Bois Blanc Island. It 
can probably be provided elsewhere at lesser expense, but there 


i 


22 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


are other considerations which convince me that this is the proper 
place to put such a dike. 

Prior to the opening of the Livingstone Channel, and while the 
cofferdam was in place, the cross current which was observed by the 
board which considered the widening of the channel had a mean 
velocity of 1.6 feet per second, which means a little over 1 
mile per hour. Since the channel has been opened there has been, of 
course, a diminution in the intensity of this current, but my measure¬ 
ments show that this current now has a mean velocity of about 1.1 
feet per second, speaking roughly, which means about three-quarters 
of a mile per hour. This current is felt, I think, by vessels navigating 
the channel after they have passed about 2,000 feet below the end of 
the dry cut, and it continues for some 2,000 feet before it finally 
becomes about parallel to the direction of the Livingstone Channel. 
Where the current is at its maximum is about 3,100 feet south of the 
opening in the cofferdam, and at this place the current has a velocity 
of about 2j feet per second, and taking that which would really be 
the beginning of the velocity that would affect a passing vessel, this 
becomes 1.25 per second, or 0.85 mile per hour. 

Vessels are allowed to navigate that channel at a speed of 10 miles 
an hour. At that speed it would take a vessel a little over two minutes 
to pass over the portion of the channel affected by this cross current. 
During that time, if the vessel were merely drifting, the cross current 
would drift her to the westward from 175 to 200 feet. The chan¬ 
nel is only 300 feet wide; its banks are rocky, and the rocks do not 
appear above the water surface at all, but only a few feet below, and 
in view of the rock a vessel driven over on that bank would be in 
great danger. These are the reasons for which I believe a dam is 
desirable and actually necessary. 

Mr. Strickland. Will the dike proposed to be constructed from 
the lower end of the cofferdam opposite Stoney Island to Bois 
Blanc Island be sufficient to prevent any injurious cross currents 
there ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; in my opinion the dam as now proposed will 
be sufficient to practically eliminate these cross currents from the 
eastward. I would like to add to what I said about the increased 
velocity opposite Amherstburg, and to say that the velocity at pres¬ 
ent in the vicinity of Amherstburg, according to my observation, and 
taking the normal flow of the Detroit River, the mean velocity oppo¬ 
site Amherstburg is about 2.54 feet per second, roughly speaking, 
which comes to about 1.8 miles per hour, and the increase of velocity 
in the vicinity of Amherstburg will not be more than one-half mile 
per hour, which makes about 2.3 miles per hour. During the time 
the dam was in place the actual velocity over Limekiln crossing, 
which is one of the most difficult points in the lower river, was about 
3.6 feet per second, or a little over miles per hour. They had 
to contend with a greater velocity than we hope they will experience 
down here in the channel after the dam is there. 

Mr. Strickland. Will the proposed dam to Bois Blanc Island 
compensate for the discharge through the Livingstone Channel and 
prevent any lowering of the water levels above ? 

Col. Patrick. I believe so. 

Mr. Turner. Why ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 23 

Col. Patrick. Simply because it puts a barrier in the stream. If 
you put any dam in any stream anywhere it will raise the water 
surface above; it will prevent the flow over that particular part of 
the dam that took place before your dam was there, and to that 
extent it will force it into all the various channels that the water 
flows through in that part of the river. What we have done is 
simply to dig a big hole right along there, and we have increased 
to a certain extent the cross section through which this water may 
flow. If we put somewhere else a similar barrier to that which we 
took out, we claim we restore the natural conditions. That is all 
there is to it. 

Mr. Strickland. I will repeat the question because the question 
has been somewhat deviated from in the answer. Will the proposed 
dam to Bois Blanc Island compensate for the discharge through the 
Livingstone Channel and prevent any lowering of the water levels 
above ? 

Col. Patrick. In my opinion, and based upon my calculations, the 
proposed dam will undoubtedly compensate for the increased flow of 
this portion of the river, due to the execution of the Livingstone 
Channel, and will prevent any lowering of water levels above. I 
might answer the question, simply, yes. 

Mr. Strickland. Will the proposed dam to Bois Blanc Island so 
divert the water into the Amherstburg Channel as to increase the 
current at that point to such an extent as to render the harbor at 
Amherstburg practically useless and cause the winter ice brought 
down by the current to destroy the docks and property along the 
river front of that town and render the navigation of vessels through 
this channel more difficult and dangerous ? 

Col. Patrick. I would like to divide that into three heads. The 
increased flow by the town of Amherstburg, due to the construction 
of the dam, I have already stated will produce a maximum addition 
to the present flow of about 1,700 cubic feet per second, and a maxi¬ 
mum increase in the velocity opposite Amherstburg of approximately 
one-half mile per hour. Those conditions would exist with the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel at its present width of 300 feet. The increases of 
flow and velocity will diminish in case the channel is opened to a 
greater width. In my opinion, the maximum increase in velocity in 
front of Amherstburg of a little less than half a mile per hour will in 
no way interfere with the use of the harbor of Amherstburg nor will 
it be injurious to navigation through this part of the river. 

Mr. Strickland. Would it cause the winter ice to be brought down 
by the current sufficient to destroy any of the dock property at 
Amherstburg ? 

Col. Patrick. I have been stationed at Detroit a comparatively 
short space of time, and this is the first winter I have gone through 
here. I can not tell, from my own knowledge, what the ice condi¬ 
tions are at Amherstburg and can only rely upon the records and 
reports which are made to me. There will be other witnesses who 
have had a number of years’ experience here, and they can answer 
better than I can; but I can give my views, founded upon the rec¬ 
ords and reports made, if that will answer the purpose. 

Mr. Strickland. I think the commission would be pleased to hear 
that. 


24 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Col. Patrick. According to the best information I can obtain from 
reports made to me by my assistants under my direction, men who 
have been on that part of the river for a number of years and who 
have put in official reports to me. I may say further that I have 
examined some of the old records in the past. 

Mr. Tawney. You are speaking from the official records in your 
office ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; and the official reports made to me by my 
assistants. Of course the ice which passes in the vicinity of Am- 
herstburg comes from Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. Under 
ordinary circumstances this ifce does not run in the lower part of the 
river until after it has become seriously weakened and so broken up 
that it has no injurious effect upon the docks or any other structures, 
or upon anchored or tied-up vessels in the vicinity of Amherstburg. 
There are occasions when storms occur when the ice may be broken 
while it is much more solid. UndeT such circumstances the ice will 
run to that side of the river toward which the wind is blowing. If 
there be a strong wind from the west, as there has been once or 
twice during the last 10 or 12 years, then the ice may be broken up 
and may run along the Amherstburg water front in large pieces and 
may do damage. But the increased flow, due to the building of the 
dam, in my opinion, will not increase such damage nor will it have 
any marked effect upon the flow of ice in this vicinity. As a matter 
of fact, the flow over Limekiln Crossing, which is some little distance 
above Amherstburg, will be less with the dam in place than it is now. 
The flow through the channels toward the westward of the Limekiln 
Crossing will be greater than it is now. It is a very reasonable 
assumption that under normal conditions the flow of ice through 
those other channels will be greater than over the Limekiln Crossing, 
and that even under storm conditions the lesser flow over Limekiln 
Crossing may cause a somewhat lesser run of ice along the Canadian 
shore. The sum and substance of it is that I do not think it will do 
the slightest damage. 

Mr. Casgrain. I believe the ice sometimes forms in the Detroit 
River ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, I said it came from the Detroit River and Lake 
St. Clair. In several years of records there have been practically no 
cases of damage at Amherstburg; in one storm the ice did injure the 
docks but that would take place whether the Livingstone Channel 
was opened or closed. 

Mr. Strickland. In your opinion, will not the result of building 
the dam be beneficial to the town of Amherstburg and other towns on 
the Detroit River rather than any way injurious to them? 

Col. Patrick. I do not know I can say that it would have any 
marked beneficial effect, except in so far as the greater amount of 
flow passing through other channels than that which leads over the 
Limekiln Crossing; when it comes to a question of sewerage, it may, 
to a certain extent, actually diminish the amount of sewerage that now 
flows by Amherstburg; it may. 

Mr. Casgrain. The sanitary experts are a little skeptical about 
that. 

Col. Patrick. I do not doubt it; I do not say it would be much 
benefit to Amherstburg. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


25 


Mr. Strickland. In your opinion, is there any other place in the 
Detroit River better suited for a dam to correct the current of that 
river than at Bois Blanc Island ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, there are other places in the Detroit River that 
are more suitable for a dam if you consider merely the compensatory 
features of this project. 

Mr. Strickland. Where are these other places, in your opinion ? 

Col. Patrick. I have not given enough thought to pick out the 
best place of all, but probably in the American or Trenton Channel, 
so called, a dam could be placed which would provide compensation 
although I think a dam placed there would have other objections. 
You can put a dam over there and compensate for the flow just as well 
as you can compensate for it here, and you could compensate for it 
with less cost, but you have this exceedingly objectionable cross 
current. 

Mr. Tawney. You have not said very much with regard to the 
importance of this dam in its relation to navigation interests on the 
Lakes ? 

Col. Patrick. No, sir; I have not. 

Mr. Tawney. That is one of the features embodied in the question 
submitted to us. 

Col. Patrick. I think that question is probably best answered by 
calling attention to the volume of the commerce which passes through 
the Detroit River. My statistics showing the amount of commerce 
on the Detroit River are now being completed, but I have gone suffi¬ 
ciently far to show that the number of vessel passages at Detroit dur¬ 
ing the last year, 1912, of navigation, amounted to about 30,080, the 
registered tonnage being 59,400,000, and the total freight carried 
about 75,865,000 tons. These figures are for Detroit. There are 
some of these vessels that do not pass Amherstburg, but according to 
the other records, the number of vessel passages up and down this 
part of the river during the same period amounted to something over 
25,000, which is one-sixth less than the Detroit figures, and presum¬ 
ably the tonnage was about one-sixth less. It would mean about 
25,000 vessels passing there, and probably about 65,000,000 tons of 
freight carried. 

Mr. Tawney. What is the length of the season of navigation ? 

Col. Patrick. It was 242 days during the season of 1912. Between 
the 19th of October and the close of navigation in December last, 
there passed through the new Livingstone Channel over 1,200 vessels, 
and the greatest number that passed through that channel in one day 
is 57. I might say there would have been more passages if the mas¬ 
ters of the vessels had done what they were told and had gone down 
there. 

Mr. Tawney. Was it on account of the cross currents they did not 
use the channel ? 

Col. Patrick. There are some of them here who can speak for 
themselves on that point and I would rather take their testimony 
than set up my own opinion. However, from my personal observa¬ 
tions, I do know that that cross current does affect vessels that pass 
through that channel. 


26 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Questioned by Mr. Maclnnes, K. C., for Canada. 

Mr. MacInnes. I understood you to say that this proposed dam is 
for two purposes—compensation for the water level and the correction 
of cross currents in that particular locality; that is correct ? 

Col. Patrick. That is perfectly correct. 

Mr. MacInnes. As to the question of compensation, I understood 
you to say that it was necessary to compensate for the lowering of the 
waters above which affected the whole of the Lake system ? 

Col. Patrick. You understood correctly. 

Mr. MacInnes. And that that was no mere surmise was established 
to you by the fact that when the cofferdam was closed there had been 
a rise in the waters, as contrasted with before, as far up as Lake St. 
Clair, as far as your observations went ? 

Col. Patrick. I said that there was that rise of the water surface 
above due to the cofferdam. 

Mr. MacInnes. And that the compensation which would be afforded 
by this dam would also extend as far or farther, as you put it, it would 
affect the whole of the Lake system ? 

Col. Patrick. That is a correct statement of the position. 

Mr. MacInnes. In dealing with the compensation you were deal¬ 
ing with a matter which affected the levels of the whole of the Lake 
system ? 

Col. Patrick. I think you may say that it has that very broad 
bearing; yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. In dealing with the question of the cross-currents, 
that was a matter of this particular locality? 

Col. Patrick. It is naturally a local question. 

Mr. MacInnes. In considering this work for the purposes of com¬ 
pensation, what was the amount that would be obtained by the dam 
in respect to compensation, or what was your estimate ? 

Col. Patrick. It is a little difficult to put that in figures. I stated 
that if the Livingstone Channel were opened to its 450 width and 
the dam put in place, at Ouellets and Mamajuda above, there would 
be a slight increase in the levels over the normal. By the 1903 meas¬ 
ured slope of the river in that part, the increased elevation for the 
dam and the wider channel would be only about 0.04 of a foot; in 
other words, if the wider channel be opened and the dam be con¬ 
structed as it is now proposed to construct it, I believe from my 
calculations that the conditions will be restored practically to what 
they were before any work was done at all on the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. MacInnes. The amount of compensation you were seeking 
to deal with was the amount of change that would be caused by the 
increase in the dam. 

Col. Patrick. It would be the amount that was caused by the 
increased flow through the channel. 

Mr. MacInnes. The question you were dealing with was the change 
that would be created by this widening of the channel ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. And this dam would afford compensation to that 
extent ? 

Col. Patrick. That is my belief. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that the question your were dealing with was 
the question relating to the increase of the width of the cofferdam ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


27 


Col. Patrick. The increased width of the Livingstone Channel. 
I was dealing with the present width and the proposed increased 
width. 

Mr. MacInnes. And this dam would afford compensation, roughly 
speaking, to that extent ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. If it had been a question of compensation pure 
and simple, or compensation to a larger extent, was there a unani¬ 
mous opinion of your board of engineers as to where compensatory 
works were to be placed ? 

Col. Patrick. I was not a member of that board, but so far as I 
read this record I do not remember that they expressed any opinion 
along that line. So far as my own personal opinion is concerned, 
if the compensatory features of this structure were to be considered 
alone, as I have stated already, there are a number of places where 
you could provide compensation besides the particular site of the 
dam. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that your opinion of this matter was formed 
because you were having to deal with compensation to the limited 
amount of the figures we have mentioned, and also to deal at the 
same time with this question of cross-currents. 

Col. Patrick. In other words, I was trving to kill two birds with 
the one stone. 

Mr. MacInnes. And also, so far as compensation by itself was 
concerned, you were dealing with a particular amount of compensa¬ 
tion? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. I do not know whether you are familiar with the 
matter vourself, but you are doubtless aware of certain changes 
in lake levels which have been caused by diversion of the waters of 
Lake Michigan; what can you say as to that? Do you know about 
it of your own knowledge ? 

Col. Patrick. I can give you a very* broad answer; that any 
change in the natural regime of the Lakes is generally reflected some¬ 
where in the Lake system. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that this diversion of the waters of Lake Michi¬ 
gan would affect the whole of the Lake level, apart from Lake Supe¬ 
rior, or possibly including Lake Superior. 

Col. Patrick. I am of the opinion that any diversion at either end 
of the Lake system, excluding Lake Superior, any what I may call 
unnatural diversion, will have its effect on the entire Lake system. 

Mr. MacInnes. You mean by unnatural, artificial? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, perhaps I should have said “artificial.” 

Mr. MacInnes. You are aware that such diversion has taken place, 
or is taking place ? 

Col. Patrick. I am aware that there is a diversion of water at 
Chicago on Lake Michigan. 

Mr. MacInnes. What is the amount of that diversion ? 

Col. Patrick. That I can not say. 

Mr. MacInnes. Wkat is the amount of the diversion which is 
covered by the permit of the Secretary of War? 

Col. Patrick. I have never seen the permit, but my recollection 
is that it is 4,167 cubic feet per second. 


28 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Macinnes. Is there any other definite basis on which you, as 
an engineer, could tell us, apart from that ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not understand the question. 

Mr. Macinnes. Is there any other definite basis as to the amount so 
diverted, that you, as an engineer, could deal with, except the figures 
you have given ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not understand that question; do you mean if I 
have any knowledge of the amount of the diversion ? 

Mr. Macinnes. In dealing with a problem of water diversion from 
the Lakes, what figures would you take as an engineer ? 

Col. Patrick. I would seek the records which have been published 
and endeavor to ascertain from them what light they threw on the 
amount of diversion actually taking place. 

Mr. Macinnes. What would be the datum that you would deal with 
in this particular case as to the level of this channel in respect to the 
diversion from Lake Michigan; would it be the fixed amount covered 
by the permit, or would it be an unascertainable amount ? 

Col. Patrick. I would have to answer the question no, both ways. 
I would not make any calculation on a mere permit granted to any 
party to divert water. 

Mr. Macinnes. Could you deal with the Lake Michigan diversion in 
dealing with a problem of this kind, to your absolute satisfaction, with¬ 
out knowing definitely what that diversion was ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I would like to know what you mean by “a 

P roblem of this kind”; did you mean to cover the Livingstone 
hannel in that question ? 

Mr. Macinnes. In dealing with the channel, would you want to deal 
with a definite situation ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not understand your question. I would have 
to answer it this way, if I understand it aright: If I were taking the 
broadest possible view of it, I would have to consider an artificial 
diversion made everywhere on the Lake system. Do you include 
diversion made at Niagara ill the possibility, as well as diversion made 
in Chicago ? 

Mr. Macinnes. Quite so; you would do that. 

Col. Patrick. In dealing with it in the broadest way, I should. 

Mr. Macinnes. In dealing with the Lake Michigan diversion, you 
told us there was nothing definite on the subject. 

Col. Patrick. In dealing with the Lake Michigan diversion alone, 
of my own knowledge I have very little information as to the exact 
state of affairs there. 

Questioned by Mr. Staunton : 

Mr. Staunton. The real reason that you desire to construct this 
dike, as I gather from your evidence, is because you consider, or those 
who will be called upon to sustain the case of the United States con¬ 
sider, that the real danger to ships navigating the Livingstone Channel, 
if the dike is not built, is by reason of the cross currents ? 

Col. Patrick. I do. 

Mr. Staunton. Will you tell me whether or not during last season 
there were any accidents to vessels navigating that channel by reason 
of that cross current ? 

Col. Patrick. There were none, but I would like to elaborate that by 
saying that during part of last season the Livingstone Channel was 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


29 


not opened, and weather and other conditions were exceptionally 
favorable. 

Mr. Staunton. Have you any records to show that the vessels 
that did navigate the channel were affected sensibly by the current 
passing over the channel ? 

Col. Patrick. I have the evidence of my own eyes. 

Mr. Staunton. What did you see ? 

Col. Patrick. When I went down the channel ahead of the steamer 
Livingstone, when they opened the channel, I was watching very care¬ 
fully. I had known of the existence of these cross currents. It had 
been discussed in the public press and other places quite extensively. 
I assumed that others had probably a much better knowledge of it than 
I had, because I had been here only a comparatively short time. I 
stood on the stern of my boat, which preceded the steamer Livingstone 
down, and after she struck the cross current I saw her bodily drift to 
the westward until she almost shut out from my view certain of the 
buoys and until I said to the man standing with me, “ I am very much 
afraid she is going to strike the bank.” 

Mr. Staunton. At what rate was she proceeding ? 

Col. Patrick. Probably 8 miles per hour. 

Mr. Staunton. What sort of a vessel was she, deep draft or 
shallow ? 

Col. Patrick. She is a pretty good-sized vessel and fairly deep in 
the water, but she was not loaded at that time and her bow was 
pretty high. 

Mr. Staunton. What water was she drawing ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not know exactly, but I should think about 
15 feet; that can be answered definitely by other persons. 

Mr. Staunton. Did you make any other observations as to ordi¬ 
nary barges traveling in that channel ? 

Col. Patrick. I watched some other barges traveling in that 
channel, but it was after I had taken particular pains to see, that a 
notice was issued calling the attention of the masters of these boats 
to the absolute necessity for, in the lower part of the channel, keeping 
well to the eastward in order to guard against this particular cross 
current. 

Mr. Staunton. I wish you to tell me, if you know, what was the 
current over the site of the proposed dyke before the building of 
the Livingstone Channel; did you tell us that before? 

Col. Patrick. I did not tell you that, and I do not know that I 
can tell you. 

Mr. Staunton. Can you tell me whether it has been decreased; 
I understand it has been decreased by the building of this channel; 
did I catch that ? 

Col. Patrick. No, you caught this: While the cofferdam was in 
place and while we blocked off all the water there, there was a certain 
current at the head of Bois Blanc Island. That current was no 
greater than the current that existed before the building of the 
cofferdam. Since the cofferdam has been taken away and the water 
enters through Livingstone Channel, the current now at the head 
of Bois Blanc Island is less than when the cofferdam was in place. 

Mr. Staunton. It ought to be less by reason of the Livingstone 
Channel. 


30 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Col. Patrick. Oh, I do not know that it ougfit to be very much 
less. 

Mr. Staunton. It would not be greater? 

Col. Patrick. I should think it would not be greater. 

Mr. Staunton. The water does not flow from the shore ? 

Col. Patrick. No. 

Mr. Staunton. So that in all probability the current is the normal 
current that existed before the building of this Livingstone Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not think I will answer that quite yet. 

Mr. Staunton. Probably. 

Col. Patrick. Possibly. 

Mr. Staunton. What is the current at the site of the proposed 
dyke? 

Col. Patrick. The mean velocity of the current across the site of 
the proposed dyke is about 1.1 feet per second, which is, roughly, 
three-quarters of a mile per hour; it is the mean velocity. 

Mr. Staunton. Are there any cross currents between Bois Blanc 
Island and the mainland, or is it parallel with the shore ? 

Col. Patrick. Practically parallel with the shore between Bois 
Blanc Island and the mainland. 

Mr. Streeter. Some of the commissioners would like to know the 
velocity. 

Col. Patrick. The mean velocity is three-quarters of a mile per 
hour, but where the current strikes the channel there is an approxi¬ 
mate velocity of about one and three-quarters miles per hour. 

Mr. Staunton. Where does that current that crosses the site of 
the dyke cross the Amherst Channel, if it does cross it ? 

Col. Patrick. It does not cross the Amherst Channel at all. 

Mr. Staunton. Does it not sweep in to the shore and come out ? 

Col. Patrick. No, the water that flows through the Amherst 
Channel runs pretty straight dowm along the Canadian shore. 

Mr. Staunton. Yes, but it struck me that the water rushing in 
and following the sinuosities of the Canadian shore—as I under¬ 
stand you it turns across the head of Bois Blanc Island ? 

Col. Patrick. Please understand me correctly. The current that 
comes down and follows the Canadian shore divides. This blue 
print shows rather clearly the state of affairs there [Col. Patrick 
indicating on map]; there is Amherst Channel, that is Bois Blanc 
Island, here is the end of the cofferdam, most of the water that 
flows to the Amherst Channel comes here, somewhere along here 
there is a division, and this line shows the line of the current across 
the site of the proposed dike. 

Mr. Streeter. We would like to have it stated in the record 
where it divides. 

Col. Patrick. The blue print which I exhibit shows the lower or 
southeast corner. Beginning at the upper end of the Livingstone 
Channel the preponderance of the current is near the Canadian 
shore, although there is some water flowing over the shallow rock 
area entrance to the cofferdam. It is difficult to state precisely 
where the division comes between the waters which flow down the 
Amherstburg Channel and the waters that flow over the dike, but, 
approximately, this would be about halfway down the length of the 
cofferdam, about opposite the middle of the cofferdam. You would 
.find there a more distinct diversion than at any other place, and at 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


31 


the lower end of the cofferdam the blue print shows the flow of water 
between the dam and Bois Blanc Island. It also shows that the 
floats which were started in the Amherst Channel proper, any place 
below, or even as far distant above the lower end of the cofferdam, 
followed the Amherst channel down past there between Bois Blanc 
Island and the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Staunton. You do not profess to say that there is any 
increased current there, but a current of three-quarters of a mile 
across that channel you say is dangerous ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I do not think you catch that quite right. I 
say that the mean velocity over the site of the proposed dike is about 
three-quarters of a mile per hour, and that where that current strikes 
the Livingstone Channel there is a velocity, a mean velocity of one mile 
and three-quarters per hour approximately. 

Mr. Staunton. Is there a constant current across the channel of 
one mile and three-quarters ? 

Col. Patrick. No; it is not constant at all. 

Mr. Staunton. I want to find out what this is? 

Col. Patrick. In other words, if you go down that channel you will 
find a cross current; that cross current will vary from anything up to 
one and a half miles or one and three-quarter miles per hour as you go 
through it. 

Mr. Staunton. At some points there is a current of water sweeping 
across that channel at one and three-quarter miles ? 

Col. Patrick. At some points and at some times there is a current. 
It does not sweep directly at right angles across, but it is a cross cur¬ 
rent which gives a velocity of about one mile and three-quarters per 
hour. 

Mr. Staunton. If I go and measure it now, will I find the water 
crossing at some angle in that channel all day long at one and three- 
quarter miles per hour? 

Col. Patrick. I do not know whether you would or not. 

Mr. Staunton. Do your records show that I will or do you expect 
I will? 

Col. Patrick. I should think you probably would. 

Mr. Staunton. That is the position you take? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; that is the position I take, that at any time you 
go down that channel you will find a cross current and, depending on 
the various levels of the gauges, depending on the various winds which 
are blowing, that current will be greater or lesser in intensity. It may 
not be the same intensity at any moment. There will be, under normal 
conditions of wind and weather, a cross current which may be, and 
probably is, one and three-quarters miles per hour in places. 

Mr. Staunton. Do you say that in your opinion there is always 
or usually a cross current which will dangerously affect navigation on 
that channel under present conditions ? 

Col. Patrick. I say that in my opinion it is absolutely necessary to 
provide for the safety of navigation by taking such precautions as will 
consider the most unfavorable circumstances under which that navi¬ 
gation can be carried on. The most unfavorable conditions would 
mean stress of weather and also taking into consideration the least 
intelligent man that is handling a boat. To provide for the safety of 
navigation under these circumstances, you should take every possible 


32 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


precaution, and the building of this dam is a precaution which will 
shut out an appreciable danger. 

Mr. Staunton. Is this dike only to be built to make the channel 
foolproof ? 

Col. Patrick. Not entirely. 

Mr. Staunton. Pretty nearly entirely. 

Col. Patrick. Not pretty nearly entirely. Even a sensible man, 
though he be not a fool, may sometimes lapse. 

Mr. Staunton. Under ordinary conditions there are no dangers in 
navigating that channel as it is now? It is only stress of storms or 
perhaps whisky in the heads of the pilots that causes the danger ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not even agree with that. I say that under 
ordinary conditions there is danger in navigating that channel. 

Mr. Staunton. Are they real dangers under ordinary conditions ? 

Col. Patrick. In my opinion there are real dangers there. 

AFTER RECESS. 

Pursuant to the taking of the recess, the commission resumed 
its hearings at 2 o’clock p. m., all the members of the commission 
being present except Mr. Powell. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will now proceed. 

Mr. Staunton. Col. Patrick, you will notice from the chart that 
the depths of the water along the westerly side of the channel below 
the cofferdam are from 5, 7, to 13 feet, and that from the corner of 
the cofferdam to Bois Blanc Island, where you intend to run the 
dike, the water is much deeper. Is that correct ? 

Col. Patrick. In places it is much deeper; yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. It runs from 12 to 20 feet? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. Will it not cost less money to build your dike on 
the westerly side of the channel and parallel with it for the necessary 
distance to prevent these currents ? 

Col. Patrick. I hardly think it would cost less. 

Mr. Staunton. You would hardly think it would cost more any¬ 
way, would you ? 

Col. Patrick. The trouble is that you would have to extend your 
dike a very much greater length if you place it parallel with the 
channel than would be the length of the dam from the cofferdam to 
Bois Blanc Island, and I am convinced that the cost of the parallel 
dike would be greater. 

Mr. Staunton. What do your calculations show the cost of the 
dike is going to be ? 

Col. Patrick. I can not give you that in dollars and cents just 
now. I can probably obtain that information for you, however. 

Mr. Staunton. Is it a very large amount of money ? 

Col. Patrick. No; not a very large amount of money. 

Mr. Staunton. Would it be five hundred or six hundred thousand 
dollars ? 

Col. Patrick. I would not like to make a guess regarding the 
amount. As I say, I can obtain that information for you. 

Mr. Staunton. Have you any idea of the percentage of increased 
cost to build it at the place I have spoken of ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I have not. I do not think I have considered 
it on the west side at all. I have considered it on the eastern side. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 33 

Mr. Staunton. You would not necessarily build it right up to the 
cofferdam, would you ? 

Col. Patrick. I would not put it on the west side at all. 

Mr. Staunton. I am coming to that in a moment. Do I under¬ 
stand you, Col. Patrick, to say that the length would necessarily be 
greater if you built it on the west side of the channel than if you built 
it where you suggest? 

Col. Patrick. I have never considered building it on the west 
side of the channel at all. 

Mr. Staunton. So you are not prepared to express an engineer’s 
opinion on it ? 

Col.. Patrick. No; not on that particular point. 

Mr. Staunton. Will you kindly give us any objections that you 
may have to building it on the west side of the channel? 

Col. Patrick. I do not believe it would be as effective as if built on 
the east side. % 

- Mr. Staunton. Would it be 95 per cent as effective? 

Col. Patrick. No; I do not think it would be. 

Mr. Staunton. Why not? 

Col. Patrick. Well, you have a channel coming straight down 
there, and here comes your current hitting it at that angle. If the 
current went directly at right angles to this channel and struck 
across there you might stop the major portion of it by a dike, against 
which it would iiftpinge as it would against a dike on the west side. 
When you put your dike there you not only interrupt the current 
entirely, but you are going to have a reverse current which will 
strike that and dash back again, causing an additional element of 
danger. 

Mr. Staunton. I am not an engineer, but I thought that when the 
current struck that wall it would run parallel with the wall. 

Col. Patrick. I doubt that very much. 

Mr. Staunton. It will not bounce back like a rubber ball, will it? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. • 

Mr. Staunton. It will not run parallel with it ? 

Col. Patrick. No. 

Mr. Staunton. I did not know that there was so much elasticity 
in water. 

Col. Patrick. Did you ever try to compress it? 

Mr. Staunton. Then why did you not build a spoil bank along the 
place that I have indicated that the wall should go when you made 
this channel? 

Col. Patrick. For the simple reason that I do not believe a spoil 
dike would be as effective. 

Mr. Staunton. If it were long enough and if it went down along 
the island it would be as effective, would it not ? The island would 
prevent a return current. 

Col. Patrick. Not entirely. You have your current striking 
against that at that angle, and you would have a reflex current 
coming back across your channel. 

Mr. Staunton. But would not the reflex current be countered right 
by the island and destroyed there? Would the current be nullified 
entirely ? 

86342—13 - 3 


34 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Col. Patrick. No; I do not think so. The cross current would not 
be entirely nullified. 

Mr. Staunton. Is it your deliberate opinion that it is not possible 
to construct for all reasonable purposes as effective a barrier to that 
water on the west side of the channel as on the eastern side ? 

Col. Patrick. That is my decided opinion. 

Mr. Staunton. Now, you ar£ going to leave a gap through your 
dike, are you not ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. Will not the water rush through there like a funnel ? 

Col. Patrick. The water will pass through that gap. 

Mr. Staunton. Will it not rusn through there ? 

Col. Patrick. “Rush” is a comparative term. I do not think the 
passage through the gap will be any faster than the current which will 
be flowing down the main channel. 

The Ch airmail What would be the width of the opening, Col. 
Patrick ? 

Col. Patrick. It has been proposed to leave an opening in the dike 
of about 300 feet wide and to permit the cross section to be about 
3,600 square feet. The velocity would be just about the same as 
through the main channel, a fraction over 3 feet per second, or a 
little over 2 miles an hour. 

Mr. Staunton. This dike which it is proposed to construct is for 
the purpose of counteracting or meeting the dangers that arise from 
the new conditions of the water ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. And if there it a greater diversion of water, we will 
say at Chicago, than is at present taking place, up to 14,000 second- 
feet, may it not be that this dike will be entirely inefficient and use¬ 
less? 

Col. Patrick. Oh, no. If such a state of affairs as that took place 
it would still not be utterly useless. 

Mr. Staunton. Will there be any danger if they divert 14,000 feet 
at Chicago ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. Will not the water be so low that you can not swim 
a boat in running water? 

Col. Patrick. I think not. 

Mr. Staunton. How much will 14,000 feet reduce the water? 

Col. Patrick. I have never calculated that. 

Mr. Staunton. The whole opinion that you have given was, at all 
events, about the difference between these two walls, whether on the 
westerly side or as you propose ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. It, however, states my engineering opin¬ 
ion as to the* advantages and disadvantages of the two, based upon 
what I believe to be sufficient data. 

Mr. Staunton. And is it not also the same as regards your view 
that it will not injuriously affect the Amherstburg or other channels? 

Col. Patrick. I have expressed an opinion upon that as from an 
engineering standpoint based upon data that I believe to support it. 

Mr. Staunton. Those are all the questions I wish to ask vou, Col. 
Patrick. 

Mr. Casgrain. How much of the proposed dike is on the Canadian 
side of the river, Col. Patrick ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


35 


Col. Patrick. The total length of the dike as proposed is about 
300 feet, and of that amount about two-thirds—I am answering 
roughly—would be in Canadian territory. 

Mr. King. Col. Patrick, the answers you have given to the ques¬ 
tions last put rather indicate that the principal reason for the building 
of the dike, having regard to existing conditions, is to cut off the 
cross currents ? Is that correct ? 

Col. Patrick. That is right; yes, sir. 

Mr. King. In other words, as far as compensation is concerned, 
that this water now withdrawn through Livingstone Channel—the 
need for that is almost negligible under existing conditions. 

Col. Patrick. So far as our measurements have gone and so far 
as we can determine from the limited period through which they 
have been taken, the need for the dike is almost negligible. 

Mr. King. If it is so that you are excluding from your considera¬ 
tion the need for compensation due to withdrawals, for instance 
from Lake Michigan, and are confining your attention to this section 
of the river, when you speak of compensation you are referring to the 
need that might arise if the channel is broadened to 450 feet instead 
of 300 feet, as it is now, at its lower end ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, to this extent; that if the channel be broadened 
in accordance with the approved project I am convinced that com¬ 
pensation will be necessary. 

Mr. King. Will you please indicate, if you can, about what deprecia¬ 
tion in levels above you- would expect if the channel is increased to 
450 feet instead of 300 feet in cross sections. 

Col. Patrick. The most recent calculation made from data which 
have been secured since the channel was opened go very far toward 
confirming the predicted result which would follow the opening of the 
channel to that width, and it is my belief that if the chanel were 
opened to 450 feet, without the dam, there would be immediately 
above the channel, or at Oulettes, a possible variation of levels from 
about 0.16 of a foot up, which, put in inches, means about 2 or 3 
inches. 

Mr. Magrath. That is lower than before the channel was con¬ 
structed ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir; lower than before the channel was con¬ 
structed. If you open this channel 450 feet wide, there will be a 
lowering immediately above of probably as much as I have stated. 

The Chairman. How would that affect navigation and to what 
extent ? Would it affect the carrying capacity of vessels ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, it would. The amount it would affect them 
would depend upon the character of the vessels used. It would 
affect them in another way, for even such a lowering as that would be 
extended clear up. Even as slight a lowering as that would produce 
greater currents in the river up above. 

The Chairman. Are there any accurate data with respect to the 
tonnage per inch of depth of water ? 

Col. Patrick. There are accurate data; yes, sir; but it depends 
entirely upon the way in which those data are used as to the precise 
results. Ordinarily, a diminution of 1 inch in the loading capacity 
means anywhere from 50 to 75 or 80 tons for each vessel. I think 
those figures can be substantiated. 


36 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Casgrain. What is the necessity of widening the Livingstone 
Channel? 

Col. Patrick. It is just like going through a somewhat narrow 
tunnel where both sides are concealed from you. In other words, 
down below the water comes up over the side. It is the belief of the 
navigator that that is so narrow that they might be driven against 
the sides, and the widening of the channel is merely for the sake of 
increasing the degree of safety in running through there. In the part 
that has been widened, of course, there are walls of rock; they are 
solid rock cut straight down. 

Mr. Casgrain. Are they marked by buoys ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes: the lines of the channel are marked by buoys. 
It is simply the narrowness of the channel that is involved. 

Mr. Casgrain. Do you know how wide the ship channel is ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I do not know. 

Mr. King. You mentioned a probable difference in levels of, say, 
2 inches if that widening is carried out in the lower end of the Living¬ 
stone cut. At what point is that 2 inches ? 

Col. Patrick. I am talking about almost immediately above the 
Oulettes gauge. 

Mr. King. Have you figured what it would be at the Limekiln 
Crossing ? 

Col. Patrick. I have not those figures here; no. That really is the 
important point. That is the point where we have made most of our 
calculations. 

Mr. King. You mentioned it as being possible all the way back 
toward higher waters. It would be less and less ? 

Col. Patrick. It would be less and less. 

Mr. King. Will you tell me, too, whether you are computing on the 
basis of a bottom width of 450 feet with shelving sides, or a straight 
cut all the way down? 

Col. Patrick. The sides of the channel are practically vertical. 

Mr. King. How far down does the rock go ? 

Col. Patrick. Halfway down to Lake Erie. Below that there 
is dredging and the banks are not quite so steep. 

Mr. King. But your proposal would be a 450-foot width ? 

Cob Patrick. The board’s proposition, which has been approved, 
is a 450-foot channel all the way through to the mouth. 

Mr. King. Haying regard to the fact that under existing circum¬ 
stances your main purpose in advocating the proposal is to obviate 
the troubles arising from the cross current, you suggest that com¬ 
pensation may be worked out by the dam 'for the withdrawal of 
water through the broader channel. Is it not a fact that once you 
have broadened the channel to 450 feet the dangers from the cross 
current would be very much less, because a boat would have that 
much more leeway to work on ? 

Col. Patrick. Quite true; the danger would be less. 

Mr. King. So you can not consider the question of cross currents 
and compensation together. At present it is cross current only that 
we fear; in the future it would be the necessity for compensation. 

Col. Patrick. Both will require it. 

Mr. King. Have I not understood you correctly when you say 
at present it is the question of cross currents, and in the future it 
will be the need for compensation ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


37 


Col. Patrick. Yes; under the present conditions that is the 
governing consideration. 

Mr. King. So it is fair for me to say, is it not, that one can hardly 
consider together as two reasons for the building of the dam the 
cross current and the need for compensation ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I do not think I can say that is fair. I think 
the two go together. 

Mr. King. But not exactly to the same extent. 

Col. Patrick. Not exactly to the same extent. In other words, 
the cross current is a controlling factor under present conditions, 
and if you broaden the channel I believe they would probably have 
more equal weight. 

Mr. King. But I suppose you would admit as to the effect of the 
cross current, either now or hereafter, that an expert navigator 
would give pretty substantial evidence. 

'Col. Patrick. I would much prefer that he should. 

Mr. Casgrain. When was the 300-foot width decided upon ? 

Col. Patrick. In the original project when it was first proposed. 

Mr. Casgrain. When was that? 

Col. Patrick. The project was adopted by Congress in 1907. It 
was reported upon favorably the year previous to that. 

Mr. Casgrain. When was the report made for the widening of the 
channel ? 

Col. Patrick. In 1910. 

Mr. Casgrain. What were the changes in navigation which were 
brought about; the number of ships, or things of that kind? 

Col. Patrick. In answer to that question I should like to put this 
document in evidence. It is Document No. 676 of the House of 
Representatives, Sixty-first Congress, second session. It contains 
the report of the Board of Engineers regarding the Livingstone 
Channel in the Detroit River. 

(The document referred to by Col. Patrick is marked “ Exhibit 
No. 2 on behalf of the United States.”) 

Mr. Strickland. Have there been any tests made concerning 
the sewage that comes from the cities above the proposed dam ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not know that I understand your question. 

Mr. Strickland. Has there been any consideration given as to 
the effect of the channel in connection with the sewage that comes 
from Detroit and other cities ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. What has been the effect of the channel on the 
sewage ? 

Col. Patrick. Consideration has been given to the condition 
which would follow the opening of the channel or the construction 
of the dam. The lower Detroit River is polluted, of course, by sew¬ 
age which comes into it from both sides of the stream; on the Amer¬ 
ican side, mainly from Detroit and the smaller towns below, and on 
the Canadian side from Walkerville, Windsor—and I believe there 
are no other real towns above Amherstburg. The question was 
whether or not the construction of the dam would have a deleterious 
effect upon points as low down as Amherstburg due to any increased 
amount of sewage that would flow by it, and my investigations 
have led me to answer that question in the negative for reasons 
which I can give if you wish them. 


38 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Strickland. Will you please state them ? 

Col. Patrick. It is a well-known fact that sewage entering a flow¬ 
ing stream through ordinary sewers, or which is carried into such a 
stream by surface flow, is generally confined to the shores along 
which it is deposited until after considerable distances have been 
reached from the places where it enters, and that the only way that 
sewage from this side of the river wrnuld reach the other side would 
be by diffusion; that is, a gradual diffusion of the sew^age to the other 
side. So if we consider merely the sewage that flows into the Detroit 
River from towns on the United States side, the probabilities are—or, 
in fact, I might say it is an absolute fact—that the major portion of 
this sewage will follow it closely dowm along the American side of the 
river and the greater portion of it will really go down through the 
so-called Trenton Channel. When the diffusion of that sewage is 
considered, it must be remembered that the construction of the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel itself has opened a new route for it to follow r , or a't 
least a route of considerably greater size than that which existed 
formerly in that place. Furthermore, the velocity thrbugh the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel to-day is greater than at any other part of the lower 
river, and I believe there is no question that the sewage from the 
American side that passes by Amherstburg to-day is less than w ould 
be the case if the Livingstone Channel were not there. I believe, 
also, that even if the dam wrnre put in place and 17,000 cubic feet 
more of water were sent down by Amherstburg the percentage of 
United States sewage passing it down would be less than it was 
wdthout the Livingstone Channel. 

Now, to consider the sewage on the other side of the river, that 
follows precisely the same way as that which is deposited from the 
United States territory, and Windsor sewage will flow down close 
along the Canadian shore. There is the possibility of contamination 
which has been suggested from the River Canards, which flows a 
sluggish stream into the Detroit River a short distance above 
Amherstburg. It is a well-known fact that where you have a smaller 
stream flowing into a larger one the larger stream predominates, and 
the less intense current is simply bent dowm and follows for a distance 
along the stronger current. If you observe a stream which is dis¬ 
colored, as small streams frequently are from local rains, you will 
find where it goes into the river it is going close dowm along the shore. 
That has been noticed in the Canards River. We have followed 
floats dowm toward Amherstburg, and there hasn’t a single one gone 
to the westward of Bois Blanc Island. They seem to have been 
drifting right into the shore. It seems to have been proven fully to 
my mind that all the sewage that flows by Amherstburg would still 
flow there. None of it which now comes out into the river above 
goes to the west of Bois Blanc Island anyway, and, consequently, the 
dam, if put in place, wmuld have no effect whatever upon the con¬ 
tamination of the water which passes in front of Amherstburg. 

The Chairman. What is the distance of Amherstburg below r 
Detroit ? 

Col. Patrick. It is, I think, 18 miles. 

The Chairman. Col. Patrick, are you familiar with the beginning 
of the improvements in the Detroit River by the Government of the 
United States ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


39 


Col. Patrick. Only in so far as I have familiarized myself with the 
work by searching the records. 

The Chairman. What do the records show as to the time the 
improvements began? 

Col. Patrick. About 1874 was the date of the adoption of the first 
project. That project provided for a winding channel through the 
Limekiln Crossing, which was then the most serious obstruction in the 
Detroit River. 


The Chairman. On which side of the line has most of the improve¬ 
ments been made by the United States Government ? 

Col. Patrick. The major portion of the expenditures has been on 
the Canadian side. 

The Chairman. What has been the aggregate expenditure by the 
United States Government on both sides of the line in the improve¬ 
ment of the Detroit River? 

Col. Patrick. I should have to look at my reports in order to 
answer that question accurately. My recollection is that the aggre¬ 
gate expenditures amount to about $11,000,000. 

The Chairman. Is that the total amount ? 

Col. Patrick. For the lower part of the river; that is my recol¬ 
lection. 

The Chairman. Does that include the Livingstone Channel? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; that includes the Livingstone Channel. 

The Chairman. You have mentioned the vessels passing up and 
down the Detroit River. How many are American and how many are 
Canadian vessels, or what is the relative proportion of the navigation 
in the Detroit River? 

Col. Patrick. The exact percentage I do not think I have, but I 
know that the American-owned vessels are much greater in number. 

The Chairman. I know they are, but I wanted the record to show 
the exact relation of navigation of the two countries in the Detroit 
River. 

Col. Patrick. May I postpone answering that question until I can 
get my data ? My men are working on that to-day. 

Mr. Hough. Was it anticipated that the construction of this work 
and the opening of the cofferdam would result in the lowering of the 
water levels ? 

Col. Patrick. It was calculated that this work as originally planned 
for a channel 300 feet wide would result in practically no change in the 
levels. 

Mr. Hough. Was it the original calculation that there would be a 
lowering of the water levels when the cofferdam was opened? 

Col. Patrick. Not for a channel 300 feet wide. 

Mr. Hough. But there would be a lowering of the levels if it were 
450 feet wide ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Would the difference of 150 feet result in a difference 
in the lowering of the levels ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. And a channel 300 feet wide would have no effect 


whatever ? 

Col. Patrick. No, because the remains of the cofferdam left in 
place and the distribution of certain material taken out of the chan¬ 
nel itself compensated for the extra flow through that 300 feet. 


40 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hough. Then the calculations have been carried out and in 
the result found from the reading of the water gauges it shows that 
there has been no’lowering of the levels by the work so far done? 

Col. Patrick. The measurements so far made are over a compara¬ 
tively short period of time. If they show anything, they show that a 
slight error may have been made in the original calculation and that 
there has been a very slight lowering even with the 300 feet. 

Mr. Hough. But, comparatively, it is negative? 

Col. Patrick. Comparatively, it is negative. 

Mr. Hough. And under present circumstances, as you told my 
learned friend, there is no necessity for the compensation there. 

Col. Patrick. I think there is very little- necessity for compensa¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Hough. And if there should be any necessity for it there are 
other places more suitable than this where it could be bulit. 

Col. Patrick. There are other places equally suitable. 

Mr. Hough. And where it could be built at less expense? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Will you tell me, Col. Patrick, what the width of the 
channel is between the cofferdam and the main Canadian shore ? 

Col. Patrick. From the cofferdam over to Canada is 2,670 feet. 

Mr. Hough. Is that at the widest point or at the narrowest point? 

Col. Patrick. That is up near the head of the cofferdam. It is 
somewhat wider down below. 

Mr. Hough. It would be considerably over 3,000 feet opposite the 
middle of the cofferdam. 

Col. Patrick. About 3,000 feet. 

Mr. Hough. I think you told us that the current going down the 
Limekiln Crossing was at about 2\ miles an hour velocity; that is 
under normal conditions, I mean. 

Col. Patrick. No; I said that while the cofferdam was in place 
there was a raising of the water up above; that while it was in place 
there was a current greater than 2\ miles velocity. 

Mr. Hough. And under present conditions ? 

Col. Patrick. Probably not more than that. 

Mr. Hough. And the Limekiln Crossing Channel takes a bend oppo¬ 
site what we call the North Lightship of about 20 degrees, I think. 

Col. Patrick. Something like that; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. I)o you know that there is a considerable current set¬ 
ting in there to the east ? 

Col. Patrick. There is probably quite a current setting in there. 

Mr. Hough. And going down at the same rate of 2\ miles an 
hour setting in to the east of that channel it has cut through the 
Limekiln rock at that point? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Can you tell me how much of the body of water passing 
through that 3,000 feet between the cofferdam and the Canadian 
shore passes west of Bois Blanc Island ? 

Col. Patrick. Do you mean now ? 

Mr. Hough. Yes; now. 

Col. Patrick. Taking the total discharge of about 204,000 cubic 
feet per second- 

Mr. Hough. I do not want to interrupt your answer, but if you 
could give me the percentage it would be more intelligent to me. 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 41 

Col. Patrick. Between Bois Blanc Island and the main shore of 
Canada the percentage of flow is about 58.3. 

Mr. Hough. So that under present conditions 40 per cent, at least, 
of the water contained in that 3,000-foot channel goes west of Bois 
Blanc Island? 

Col. Patrick. About that. 

Mr. Hough. Which will be diverted in the Amherstburg Channel 
if the dam is built ? 

Gol. Patrick. Not all of it. 

Mr. Hough. Well, all but what will go through the 300-foot gap. 

Col. Patrick. No. 

Mr. Hough. Where will the rest of it go ? 

Col. Patrick. Through the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Hough. But I am talking now about the water between the 
cofferdam and the Canadian shore. 

Col. Patrick. So am I. 

Mr. Hough. Can any of that get through the Livingstone Channel 
after this dam is built except through this 300-foot gap ? 

Col. Patrick. Your question is with regard to the water that is 
now going down there. When that dam is built there will not be so 
much water going down there. 

Mr. Hough. Where will it go ? 

Col. Patrick. Through the Livingstone Channel and through the 
channels to the west of it; that is, some of it. 

Mi*. Hough. What I am referring to is the water now in the channel 
between the cofferdam and the Canadian shore. 

Col. Patrick. I understand that perfectly. What I mean is this: 
After you put the dam in place there will not be so much water going 
down over the Limekiln Crossing as there is now. 

Mr. Hough. Do you mean that the dam will retard the flow 
from above so there will not be so much ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. But in any event what would otherwise go through 
there would be practically all sent through the Amherstburg Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. And the Amherstburg Channel at the narrowest point 
is, I believe, about 1,000 feet. 

Col. Patrick. About that. 

Mr. Hough. Now, this current that you are complaining of will 
meet that dam practically at right angles, will it not ? 

Col. Patrick. When the dam is in place there will not be any 
current except through the small opening. 

Mr. Hough. The dam will be there to stop the current ? 

Col. Patrick. The dam will be about perpendicular. 

Mr. Hough. And the flow of the water will be against the dam ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. And the action of the dam in diverting that water 
will cause a much greater current than if it were allowed to go through 
across the Livingstone Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I think not. 

Mr. Hough. Into the channel to which it is diverted, I mean. 

Col. Patrick. I think not, if I understand the question correctly. 

Mr. Hough. Will not the pressure of the water from behind coming 
against that dam cause it to shoot out, as it were, along the lower end 


42 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


of that dike at a much greater force than if it were allowed to flow 
across ? 

Col. Patrick. If you mean that there will be a greater current 
opposite the head of Bois Blanc Island than there is now between 
that and Amherstburg, you are correct. 

Mr. Hough. I mean will not there be a greater current than there 
is anywhere in the river now at that point ? 

Col. Patrick. No. 

Mr. Hough. Would it not act the same as that rebound you 
recently spoke about if it hit the wall on the west side of the dam ? 

Col. Patrick. You stated that this was going to hit it at practi¬ 
cally right angles. 

Mr. Hough. It does not bound as much if it hits it at right angles 
as if it hits it obliquely ? 

Col. Patrick. No; it will not follow the same line. If you put 
your dam in place it will run right along the dam. 

Mr. PIough. It will divert it, however, into that thousand-foot 
channel and at a greater rate than it is going now across the Living¬ 
stone Channel. 

Col. Patrick. The current in the Amherstburg Channel certainly 
will be greater than the cross current now. 

Mr. Hough. I mean the current following down that dam across 
the Amherstburg Channel. 

Col. Patrick. It will go right down along the Amherstburg 
Channel. 

Mr. Hough. How far is it from the west side of it to the head of 
the island? I mean regarding the channel taken by boats going 
through that passage. I am told it is within 200 feet of the head of 
the island. 

Col. Patrick. I do not think it is quite as close as that. , 

Mr. Hough. I think you will find that that is approximately 
correct. Now, will not that current be shot down a much greater 
distance than that 200 feet into the Amherstburg Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. I hardly think so. I do not think that the building 
of the dam there will injure the Amherstburg Channel by the intro¬ 
duction of any serious cross current there whatever. 

Mr. Hough. Do you remember the condition that existed when 
the cofferdam was closed at the upper end ? 

Col. Patrick. Only in so far as I have obtained it from records. 

Mr. Hough. I am instructed that when the cofferdam was in 
and the currents down the river met the upper end of it at right 
angles it caused the cross current to go around the northeast corner 
at 5 miles an hour and upward at times. 

Col. Patrick. I can not answer that question. 

Mr. Hough. And that that cross current was felt all the way 
across the river. 

Col. Patrick. I suspect that that is probably true. 

Mr. Hough. Would not the same thing exist here? 

Col. Patrick. To a minor degree. You have much less water 
down there than up here. 

Mr. Hough. But it is going over the Limekiln at two and a half 
miles an hour. That is a greater velocity than it is up above. 

Col. Patrick. Not much. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 43 

Mr. Hough. I was instructed that the Limekiln Crossing was 
the worst current they had. 

Col. Patrick. It has been about the worst current on the river, 
but when you are comparing it with the state of affairs existing 
when the cofferdam was closed you must take into consideration the 
larger quantity of water there. 

Mr. Hough. Under ordinary circumstances the offshoot would 
go at least a thousand feet. 

Col. Patrick. No; you must recall another thing. Take all that 
blue area that you have up there above; that is very shallow water. 
We have dumped material out there until we have filled almost 
from the cofferdam to the wide channel. With the dam in place it 
is going to be shallow, too. I can not agree that there is going to be 
any bad current up there at all. 

Mr. Hough. Would it not be possible to stop this cross current, 
then, by filling in the area that you speak of there? 

Col. Patrick. Not so long as you leave the opening down below 
between Bois Blanc Island and the other point. There will be the 
draw right through there. 

Mr. Hough. It would not be so strong, I suppose ? 

Col. Patrick. Possibly not quite so strong. 

Mr. Hough. Now, when you said that the increase in the Amherst- 
burg Channel would be half a mile an hour, does that mean that the 
whole flow of water through the Amherstburg Channel would be 
increased that much ? 

Col. Patrick. It means that the increase in the mean velocity 
would be about that. 

Mr. Hough. It is theoretical, of course. 

Col. Patrick. No; it is a physical fact. 

Mr. Hough. What I am trying to get at is this: Will not the increase 
be greater in some parts of that channel than in others? 

Col. Patrick. There will be greater velocity in some parts of the 
channel than in others. 

Mr. Hough. It will run, then, from half a mile an hour up ? 

Col. Patrick. It will run from zero up. 

Mr. Hough. You said the mean velocity would show an increase 
of about half a mile an hour. That, I take it, would be the lowest 
increase that you would find. 

Col. Patrick. No; not at all. 

Mr. Hough. Would that be the highest ? 

Col. Patrick. No. 

Mr. Hough. Then how high would the velocity run ? 

Col. Patrick. That is a question that it is almost impossible to 
answer. 

Mr. Hough. In some parts of the channel it would be a great deal 
higher than that? 

Col. Patrick. No, I should not say that. In some parts of the 
channel the increase would be greater and in some parts of the channel 
it would be less. 

Mr. Hough. But the increase would be considerably greater than 
that in the portion of the channel immediately around the head of the 
island ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I do not think you could point that out as being 
the place where it would be the greatest . 


44 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hough. Where would you say would be the greatest? 

Col. Patrick. Probably somewhere in the middle of the channel. 

Mr. Hough. You think the current would not start going fast 
until it got into the middle of the channel ? 

Col. Patrick. No; I would not say that. I am trying to put the 
thing squarely and fairly before you. In the middle of the channel 
you have greater current than afong shore. 

Mr. Hough. I am referring now particularly to the current that 
will be diverted by this dam. That will not be in the middle of the 
channel until it gets there, and that will be what will cause the 
increase. 

Col. Patrick. No, it will not. It is a physical fact. The cause 
of the increase will be the damming back and the greater slope. The 
dam will increase your slope and there will be a greater current. 

Mr. Hough. And you could not give an estimate as to what the 
greatest velocity would be? 

Col. Patrick" No; I could not tell you. 

Mr. Hough. The current varies materially from practically nothing 
to 5 or 6 miles an hour, according to the winds ? 

Col. Patrick. There are times and places where it goes 5 miles 
an hour. 

Mr. Hough. And these estimates that you have given are under 
normal conditions? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. I am speaking, of course, of this particular place. 
Did I understand you to state, Col. Patrick, that the cross current 
which you are now complaining of was diminished by the opening 
of the 300-foot cut ? 

Col. Patrick. That was what I stated. 

Mr. Hough. It was diminished from one and a half miles an hour, 
I think, to three-quarters of a mile. ? 

Col. Patrick. I said something less than a mile and a quarter. 

Mr. Hough. That was before the dam was open? 

Col. Patrick. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. And since the dam has been open it has been reduced 
to three-quarters of a mile ? 

Col. Patrick. The mean velocity now is about three-quarters of a 
mile. 

Mr. Hough. In your opinion, if the channel were completed and 
widened to the full 450 feet, would it be still further reduced ? 

Col. Patrick. It is possible that the mean velocity w T ould be some¬ 
what less under those circumstances. 

Mr. Hough. You would not venture an opinion as to how much ? 

Col. Patrick. No. 

Mr. Hough. It might be possible that upon the completion of this 
work the danger from the cross current would disappear entirely. 

Col. Patrick. No; I do not think I would be willing to say "that. 

Mr. Hough. You would be willing to say it might be possible, 
unless you can give me some contrary opinion. 

Col. Patrick. I should have to put my answer this way: The 
current itself will be diminished beyond question; to what particular 
extent I am not prepared to say. The channel itself, by being wider, 
will be safer, irrespective of the strength of the cross current. There¬ 
fore, the danger to navigation will be somewhat less. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL, 45 

Mr. Hough. And the question of how much less is a matter of 
opinion ? 

Col. Patrick. It is a matter of opinion, and I would not like to 
put a figure on it. 

Mr. Hough. Is the Ouellettes gauge the lowest point, or is there 
less water at that point than anywhere else; or what is the reason 
for taking the gauge there? 

Col. Patrick. It is a convenient place for locating the gauge. 

Mr. Hough. What is the depth of water there in the channel ? 

. Col. Patrick. Do you mean where the gauge is ? 

Mr. Hough. No; in the channel opposite where the gauge is. 

Col. Patrick. Probably about 20 to 22 feet. 

Mr. Hough. And what is the usual draft of boats going through 
the Soo ? 

Col. Patrick. They are limited by the depth that can be carried 
through the locks. 

Mr. Hough. And is not that always less than the depth that they 
can load to here ? 

Col. Patrick. The answer to that question is yes, but- 

Mr. Hough. As a matter of fact, are they not governed not by the 
depth here, but what they can get over the Soo ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; but the new locks being built at the Soo are 
providing for 24£ feet in depth being carried through them. 

Mr. Hough. Of course, that is in the future. 

Col. Patrick. So is this. • 

Mr. Hough. So, under present conditions, even with the lowering 
of the levels 2 or 3 inches, it would have no effect, or would be no 
impediment, on the vessels going down, because they would still have 
to load to accommodate themselves to the depth of water at the canal % 

Col. Patrick. No; because there are times here when the winds 
lower the water in the channel. 

Mr. Hough. But I am talking about normal conditions. 

Col. Patrick. Under normal conditions; yes. 

The Chairman. Has Congress authorized the construction of this 
dike for the improvement of navigation in the Detroit River ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When was the authority given % 

Col. Patrick. In 1910. 

The Chairman. Upon what report, if any, was the authorization 
made ? 

Col. Patrick. Upon the report of the Board of Engineers con¬ 
tained in House Document No. 676, Sixty-first Congress, secoild ses¬ 
sion, which has been introduced here. 

The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to whether or not this 
board took into consideration the relative advantages to navigation 
and the disadvantages to private interests on either side of the river 
in making their recommendations to Congress as to the construction 
of this dike ? 

Col. Patrick. I can not say of my own knowledge what matters 
they took into consideration, except so far as they themselves have 
set forth those matters in their report. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether they conducted any inves¬ 
tigations or held any hearings here in the vicinity of the Detroit River 
for the purpose of ascertaining how the people locally felt about it ? 



46 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Col. Patrick I really do not know, sir. 

Mr. White. Has any authorization been given for the widening of 
the channel from 350 to 450 feet ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir; that is authorized under the same act and 
based upon the same report. In other words, the dam and the 
widening were the recommendations made by this board, and Congress 
adopted that project the next year. 

The Chairman. Mr. Strickland, will you kindly get together for the 
convenience of the committee a memorandum of the legislation con¬ 
cerning the improvements in the Detroit River ? 

Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. 

Col. Patrick. Mr. Chairman, this report of the board favored and 
recommended the widening just in that portion of the Livingstone 
Channel within the cofferdam. I would like to alter my answer to 
Mr. White’s question to that extent. 

Mr. White. The point is that it only refers to the part within the 
cofferdam, and not to the whole channel. 

Col. Patrick. It is not authorized for the entire length of the 
channel, but only that portion within the length of the cofferdam. 

Mr. Turner. If the channel is only 300 feet below the cofferdam, 
it would not throw the water out at all, would it ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; just like a funnel. It spreads out on both 
sides. It will increase it beyond question. 

The Chairman. Col. Patrick, do you know what amount of money 
the Canadian Government has expended, if any, in the improvements 
on the Detroit River? 

Col. Patrick. I can not answer that question. The Canadian 
engineer is here and possibly he can answer it. 

Mr. Streeter. Have you the figures with regard to the expenditures 
made by the Government of the United States for improvements on 
the Detroit River? 

Col. Patrick. I will get those figures and put them in the record. 

The Chairman. I believe you said that the expenditures of the 
Government of the United States was about $11,000,000? 

Col. Patrick. That was my recollection. 

The Chairman. I think you will find on examining the record that 
from the beginning of the improvements down to the present time the 
amount has been considerably more than that. For the purpose of 
completing the record, I would like to have you submit the total 
amount. 

Col. Patrick. I will do that. * 

(Lieut. Col. Patrick presented the following:) 

Livingstone Channel— Bois Blanc Island Dam. 

HISTORY OF DETROIT RIVER IMPROVEMENT. 

1. Before its improvement the Detroit River was obstructed by a rocky ridge extend¬ 
ing across the river at Limekiln Crossing on which the least channel depth at the mean 
stage of Lake Erie was 12^ feet. The project of improvement adopted in 1874 pro¬ 
vided for a winding channel through the Limekiln Crossing of 20 feet depth at the 
mean stage and 300 feet width. This channel was gradually widened and straight¬ 
ened, and in 1892 a project was adopted for a channel 600 feet wide from Detroit to 
Lake Erie. This project of 1892 contemplated not only the widening of the channel 
at the Limekiln Crossing but also the removal of numerous bowlders above it and on 
the eastern side of Bois Blanc Island below it. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


47 


2. In 1902 a project was adopted for deepening this channel to 21 feet at the extreme 
low-water stage of Lake Erie of 1895, and with the exception of the Ballards Reef 
crossing, just above the Limekilns, this project has been completed. 

3. In 1907 the project was again modified so as to provide for two channels, the 
existing channel to be used by up bound vessels and a new one by those downbound. 
This second channel, called Livingstone Channel, is west of Bois Blanc Island, and 
was to have a width of 300 feet across the Limekiln ridge and to Bar Point, thence 800 
feet to deep water in Lake Erie with a least depth of 22 feet at the low water of 1895. 

4. This project was modified in 1910 to provide for 450 feet width within that por¬ 
tion (about 5,600 feet length) of the Livingstone Channel inclosed by cofferdams in 
the vicinity of Stony Island. The Livingstone Channel project as thus modified was 
completed and the channel opened to navigation on October 19, 1912. The comple¬ 
tion of this work has opened up a channel of about 23 feet depth through the Lime¬ 
kiln Crossing ridge where originally the least depth was about 4 feet. 

5. The modification of the Livingstone Channel project in 1910 provided also for 
the construction of a dam between the north end of Bois Blanc Island and the Stony 
Island cofferdam, all in accordance with the recommendations of a special board of 
engineers, whose report was published in House Document No. 676, Sixty-first Con¬ 
gress, second session. 

6. This dam was intended to serve two purposes, (a) to cut off the current which 
flowed between the lower end of the Livingstone Channel cofferdam and Bois Blanc 
Island and now flows across the completed Livingstone Channel below the site of 
the cofferdams, and (6) to compensate for the increased flow which will result from 
the opening of Livingstone Channel to 450 feet, a width greater than that originally 
planned. The proposed dam was to be about 3,000 feet long, of which about 2,100 
feet would be in Canadian waters. 

7. The report of the special board of engineers dealt more particularly with the com¬ 
pensating features of the proposed dam, and showed that quite probably the opening 
of the Livingstone Channel 1,300 feet wide and without compensation other than that 
afforded by the portions of the cofferdam to be left in place, would result in no in¬ 
creased discharge, and that conditions above the channel would soon be restored to 
practically what they were before this work was undertaken. Further, it showed that 
with a channel wider than 300 feet, unless additional compensation were provided, 
there would be an increased discharge and a lowering of the water levels above this 
locality. 

8. Based upon this report, the Congress of the United States authorized the widening 
of the channel to 450 feet for a portion of its length and gave its sanction to the building 
of the proposed dam. This widening has been completed, but as opposition to the 
dam developed, its construction was never started and as it was impracticable to 
open the channel to its increased width without compensation for the increased dis¬ 
charge which would follow, it has been necessary to retain in place portions of the 
cofferdams at the ends of the widened portions of the channel, so that its usable 
width is restricted to 300 feet. 

NECESSITY FOR PROPOSED DAM. 

9. Compensation .—As the conclusion of the special board of engineers that addi¬ 
tional compensation would be needed if the channel width is made greater than 300 
feet was based upon reasoning similar to that which led to the prediction that no 
marked change in the regimen of the river would follow the opening of the 300-foot 
channel, attention is invited to the results of actual observations and measurements 
made since the channel was opened. It was predicted that at mean lake stages the 
discharge through the 300-foot channel would be 32,130 c. f. s. The actual measured 
discharge August. 1912, at Lake Erie stage 572.62 (mean stage for 52 years 572.56) was 
35,772 c. f. s. The difference between the computed and the measured discharge, 
3,642 c. f. s., is largely accounted for by the fact that owing to the increase in the 
dimensions of this channel under the modified project the actual cross section was 
somewhat larger than that used in the computations, and to the further fact that at 
this date the abnormal conditions above, due to the cofferdam, had not entirely dis¬ 
appeared. It was predicted that after the opening, at mean stages, the water surface 
at Ouellettes gauge would vary from the normal by a plus 0.02 foot to — .0. 03 foot 
(depending upon the value assigned to C in the formula V=C sq’ rt’ RS,) and that 
the change at this gauge from the conditions noted in 1909 while the cofferdam was in 
place would be -0.35 foot. The mean fall from Ouellettes to Amherstburg in 1909 
was 1.17 foot; and in August and September, 1912, it was 0.83 foot, a decrease of 0.34 
foot. 


48 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


10. These observations lend greater weight to the conclusion that additional com¬ 
pensation will certainly be needed if a channel width greater than 300 feet is made 
available. It is freely admitted, however, that such additional compensaiton can 
readily be provided elsewhere than at the site of the proposed dam and at less expense, 
but such works at a different site might add to rather than lessen the difficulties of 
navigation in this dangerous part of the Detroit River. 

11. At the time wheh the dam, one of whose functions was to be the shutting off 
the cross current, was recommended this current between Bois Blanc Island and the 
cofferdam had a mean velocity of about 1.59 feet per second. It was realized that the 
velocity at this section would be less when the Livingstone Channel was opened, but 
it was thought this velocity would still be considerable and that if the current were 
not eliminated it would add to the danger of navigation through that part of the channel 
where its effect would be felt. The mean velocity at this section as recently measured 
is about 1.13 feet per second, and experience has shown that its effect upon the Living¬ 
stone Channel is quite appreciable. This statement is based upon personal observa¬ 
tion and reports from navigators. In fact, it has been found necessary to issue a warning 
to all vessel men to keep well to the eastward when entering that part of the channel 
where the effect of this current is felt, and the danger from it becomes more apparent 
when it is remembered that here the channel is but 300 feet wide, that its submerged 
banks are practically solid rock and in many places not far below the surface. 

12. The harmful effect of this objectionable and dangerous cross current can be 
eliminated in two ways—by building the proposed dam or by building a training 
wall or dike on the eastern side of the channel parallel to its axis. Such a dike would 
probably have to be carried well down opposite Bois Blanc Island, with its length 
about 6,000 feet, as compared with the length of 3,000 feet for the dam. Its cost would 
be greater than that of the dam, and, furthermore, there would have to be added the 
cost of the compensating works which would have to be provided elsewhere and 
probably the cost of a revetment to protect the head of the island from erosion. It 
would also be impracticable to leave any opening through such a dike so close to the 
channel, and all boats plying between Amherstburg and points to the westward of 
the Livingstone Channel would have to make a long detour to the southward. 

DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS AND WATER-LEVEL OBSERVATIONS. 

13. To determine the effect of former improvements and of the proposed dam upon 
water levels and current velocities, the volume of flow through the several channels 
in lower Detroit River was measured during 1909 and during August, October, and 
December, 1912. The results of the 1909 observations and a discussion thereof will 
be found in House Document 676, Sixty-first Congress, second session. 

14. As the levels of the Lakes are changing constantly it is improbable that any two 
independent measurements of the discharge will agree exactly, but it is not unreason¬ 
able to assume that within limits the percentages of flow through the several channels 
will not differ materially. 

15. The measurements of December, 1912, made by the United States and those 
by Canada in September, 1912, gave the following percentages: 



Percentage of flow. 

By United 
States, 
December, 
1912. 

By Canada, 
September, 
1912. 

Grosse Isle, Mich. 

23.3 

6.8 

18.1 

51.8 

22.2 

6.4 

18.6 

52.8 

Grosse Isle, Stony Island. 

Livingstone Channel. 

Limekiln Crossing. 

Total. 

100.0 

100.0 

















THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


49 


The discharge through Limekiln Crossing Channel now enters Lake Erie via the two 
channels—Bois Blanc Island, Canada, and Bois Blanc Cofferdam. The portion of this 
discharge that is carried by each of these channels was as follows: 



By United States. 

By Canada, 
September, 
1912. 

October, 

1912. 

December, 

1912. 

Bois Blanc Island, Canada Channel. 

Per cent. 
58.3 
41.7 

Per cent. 
58.6 
41.4 

Per cent. 
60.4 
39.6 

Bois Blanc Island, Cofferdam Channel. 

Limekiln Crossing. 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 



16. Applying the above (United States) percentages to the mean discharge of the 
river, 204,000 second-feet (Report International Waterways Commission, p. 102), we 
have the following results: 



Discharge. 

Percentage 
of flow. 

Velocities 
(feet per 
second). 

Gross Isle, Mich. 

47,500 

13,800 

37,000 

105,700 

23.3 

6.8 

18.1 

51.8 

1.77 
1.80 
3.49 

2.77 

Grosse Isle, Stony Island. 

Livingstone Channel. 

Limekiln Crossing. 

Total. 

204,000 

100.0 


Bois Blanc, Canada. 


61,600 
44,100 

58.3 

41.7 

2.54 

1.10 

Bois Blanc Dam. 



17. Careful calculations have been made to determine the probable effect of a 
dam such as that proposed between the cofferdam and Bois Blanc Island, such a 
dam to have in it an opening about 300 feet wide to serve such navigation as may 
desire to pass between Amherstburg and points to the west of the island. Without 
burdening the record with th.e details of the calculations the results are as follows, 
the predicted percentages of flow being applied to the mean discharge as above: 


Predicted discharge with dam in place. 


U 

Livingstone Channel, 300 
feet wide. 

Livingstone Channel, 450 
feet wide. 

Dis¬ 

charge. 

Per cent. 

Veloc¬ 

ities. 

Dis¬ 

charge. 

Percent. 

Veloc¬ 

ities. 

Grosse Isle, Mich. 

Grosse Isle, Stony Island. 

Livingstone Channel. 

Limekiln Crossing.i. 

Total. 

50.200 
15,700 
47,900 

90.200 

24.6 

7.7 

23.5 

44.2 

1.87 

2.07 

4.52 

2.36 

49,000 

15,000 

52,600 

87,400 

24.0 

7.0 

25.9 

43.1 

1.83 

1.98 

4.35 

2.29 

204,000 

100.0 


204.000 

100.0 


Bois Blanc, Canada. 

300-foot opening in dam. 

Total . 



78,500 

11,700 

87.0 

13.0 

3.24 
3.24 

76,034 

11,362 

87.0 

13.0 

3.14 
3.14 

90,200 

100.0 


87,396 

100.0 






The net result, as shown by the above tables, is an increased flow by Amherstburg 
of 17,000 second-feet for the present opening in the Livingstone Channel, with an 
increase of velocity in this vicinity of approximately one-half (0.49) mile per hour, 


86342—13-4 

































































50 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


and for the Livingstone Channel 450 feet wide these quantities become 14,400 second- 
feet and approximately 0.43 miles per hour. It should be noted that while the dis¬ 
charge and velocity in the vicinity of Amherstburg are increased as above, there will 
be a lessened discharge and a lessened velocity over Limekiln Crossing. 

18. The objections which have been urged to the building of the dam are as 
follows: 

(а) By increasing the current between Bois Blanc Island and the Canadian shore 
the difficulties of navigation will be increased and the harbor of Amherstburg rendered 
useless. 

(б) A greater quantity of ice will be brought down the channel along the Amherst¬ 
burg water front injuring the docks and other water-front property. 

(c) The sewage and drainage from the fiver Canard, which enters the Detroit 
River about 4 miles above Amherstburg will be prevented from following its natural 
course to the west of Bois Blanc Island, and instead it will be diverted to the channel 
between Bois Blanc Island and the mainland, passing the waterworks intake and 
thereby endangering the health of the inhabitants of Amherstburg. 

(d) The dam will prevent boats plying to and from Amherstburg from using the 
present channel between Bois Blanc Island and the cofferdam. 

Taking up these objections seriatim: 

(а) At present without the dam, the discharge Bois Blanc Island-Canadian mainland 
is 61,600 second-feet and the mean velocity is 2.54 feet per second. After the dam is 
completed, this discharge will be about 78,500 second feet and the velocity about 3.24 
feet per second. If the Livingstone Channel is widened to 450 feet, this discharge 
will be about 76,000 second-feet and the velocity 3.14 feet per second. The maximum 
probable increase in current velocity will be therefore about 0.70 foot per second, or 
not quite one-half mile per hour. It hardly seems probable that such an increase 
in the current velocity would add appreciably to the difficulties of navigation, or 
in anyway interfere with the use of the harbor of Amherstburg. 

(б) The only drifting ice that ever arrives in. the vicinity of Amherstburg is that 
from Detroit River and Lake St. Clair. Usually this ice does not drift with the current 
until warm weather has weakened it so that it is broken into small pieces. In this 
condition, with little or no wind, it flows through all the channels, and a large part of 
it will be carried by the Livingstone Channel. With a strong wind, however, these 
fields of broken ice follow the shore toward which the wind blows. With a strong 
westerly wind, ice follows the Canadian shore and along the docks at Amherstburg, 
even under the present conditions, with an open channel at the head of Bois Blanc 
Island. Only once during the past 16 years has drifting ice caused damage at Am¬ 
herstburg. Then the ice when quite firm was broken up by a westerly gale and the 
fields of ice followed the Canadian shore. The force of the wind piled the ice upon 
the north end of the docks at Amherstburg and did some damage. At that time the 
fields of ice extended only a short distance from shore and there was no ice flowing 
west of Bois Blanc Island. The proposed dam can in no way contribute to damage 
caused by drifting ice. The only conditions by which such damage may be caused are 
as stated above, and then no ice would flow west of Bois Blanc Island even if this 
channel were open as at present. 

(c) The Canard River flows into the Detroit River about 3£ miles north of Amherst¬ 
burg. This stream, with a discharge of about 1,500 cubic feet per second, flows through 
low marshy land, and its current is ordinarily sluggish. During 1910 floats were placed 
at the mouth of the stream, followed by boats, and their courses noted. The obser¬ 
vations show that the discharge from Canard River follows closely along the Canadian 
shore to Lake Erie. Also, after every heavy rain, when Canard River water is much 
discolored, this muddy water may be plainly seen extending from the Canadian shore 
at Amherstburg only about 500 feet. Apparently little or none of this water dis¬ 
charged by the Canard River flows to the west of Bois Blanc Island. The intake 
pipe of the Amherstburg waterworks is located not more than 100 feet from the main¬ 
land shore and nearly opposite the head of Bois Blanc Island. The proposed dam 
can have no injurious effect upon Amherstburg’s water supply. 

(d) .An opening about 300 feet wide may be left in the proposed dam and will be 
sufficient for all traffic between Amherstburg and points west of the dam. The blue¬ 
print herewith gives certain gauge relations and shows clearly the backwater effect 
while the cofferdam was in place, causing a rise of 0.32 foot at Oullettes to Amherst¬ 
burg, from 0.95, as shown by the observations in 1903, prior to the building of the 
dam, to 1.27 feet in 1911. 

The levels of 1912 indicate that the opening of the dam has restored conditions 
nearly to the normal, though it will require a series of observations to determine with 
accuracy the effect upon the Detroit River of the opening of the new channel. Appar¬ 
ently there has been a slight lowering of the water surface just above it, and this is 
objectionable. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


51 


The proposed dam to Bois Blanc Island will certainly provide a sufficient amount 
of compensation and permit the Livingstone Channel to be opened to its project 
width of 450 feet. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES Y. DIXON. 

Charles Y. Dixon, called on behalf of the United States Govern¬ 
ment, after having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Mr. Reeves T. Strickland. Will you kindly give your full name, 
Mr. Dixon, and your occupation ? 

Mr. Dixon. I am a civil engineer. I am in local charge of the 
improvements on the Detroit River under the engineer officer. 

Mr. Strickland. Through the records and as a result of your own 
experience you are acquainted with the conditions of the water levels 
in the Livingstone Channel at the present time ? 

Mr. Dixon. I am. 

Mr. Strickland. Has the creating of that channel made any dif¬ 
ference in the flow of the water in this locality ? 

Mr. Dixon. Do you mean as to the water levels ? 

Mr. Strickland. Yes; and as to the currents. 

Mr. Dixon. The present width of the Livingstone Channel has 
changed conditions so that there is about the same slope existing in 
the Detroit River now that existed prior to the Livingstone Channel 
improvements—that is, before the cofferdam was constructed. 

Mr. Strickland. In your opinion, is it necessary that the dam be 
erected from the head of the cofferdam to Bois Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Dixon. It is necessary to have some correction to cross currents 
existing at that locality. A cofferdam such as you have spoken of is 
one means of accomplishing that purpose. 

Mr. Strickland. Is that, in your opinion, the best locality ? 

Mr. Dixon. It is a very desirable locality. 

Mr. Strickland. Would that create any strong current by the flow 
of the water against it if built ? 

Mr. Dixon. In what locality ? 

Mr. Strickland. That is, the water coming down the river and 
striking the dam; would that create any strong current in the 
Amherstburg Channel ? 

Mr. Dixon. There would be a strong current in the Amherstburg 
Channel because of the amount of water diverted by that dam; but, 
in my opinion, the water near the face of the dam would be practi¬ 
cally* dead water, and the current through there would be practically 
straight. 

Mr. Strickland. Would not an opening of 300 feet in that dam 
reduce the current—that is, an opening of 300 feet in the dam to let 
boats through? 

Mr. Dixon. It would be less in the Amherstburg Channel than it 
would be if there were no opening left in the dam at all. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you made any observations as to the sewage 
coming down from above Amherstburg ? 

Mr. Dixon. We have made observations as to the flow of sewage 
coming from the Canards River. The Canards River flows through 
the low, marshy land, and we have observed the flow from that 
stream by floats placed in its mouth. They followed the Canadian 
shore. Also, after every heavy rainstorm, when the Canards River 


52 


t THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


is discolored, the muddy water may be seen extending out perhaps 
two-thirds of the distance across from the Canadian shore at the head 
of Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Strickland. In your opinion, would the building of this dam 
deflect the ice to the Canadian shore to any extent ? 

Mr. Dixon. So far as the ice is concerned, I do not think the dam 
would have any effect on the amount of ice. In the spring the ice 
breaks up when it is pretty well disintegrated by the warm weather. 
It breaks up into small fields and if there is no wind it flows through 
all of the channels, and of course the Livingstone Channel would 
carry its share of it, but with the winds blowing the ice follows the 
shore toward which the w T ind blows. With a strong westerly wind 
there is very little, if any, ice flowing west of Bois Blanc Island. I 
know of only one instance where any serious damage was done at 
Amherstburg by drifting ice. That was one spring when the ice 
broke up at a time when there was a strong westerly gale, and it 
followed closely along the Canadian shore and did damage to the 
docks at the upper end of Amherstburg. At that time there was no 
ice west of Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Casgrain. How long have you been here, Mr. Dixon ? 

Mr. Dixon. I have been here 17 years. 

Mr. Casgrain. Then, in your opinion, for the benefit of navigation, 
a dam is desirable at that locality ? 

Mr. Dixon. A dam would correct the cross currents in that locality, 
and to that extent would be beneficial to navigation. 

Mr. MacInnes. Did you deal with the question of compensation 
at all of water levels ? 

Mr. Dixon. I assisted in the preparation of the information that 
Col. Patrick has submitted, and the results that were given by him 
are the results of our deductions. 

Mr. MacInnes. And this dam will also afford a compensation to 
water levels to a certain extent ? 

Mr. Dixon. It will; yes, sir. 

Mr. MacInnes. If the water levels were changed at this spot from 
other reasons, either from raising the water, we will say, by a sub¬ 
merged dam at Niagara Falls, or lowered by the subtraction of the 
water elsewhere, you would have a different problem of compensation 
to deal with ? 

Mr. Dixon. I think not. We would have exactly the same prob¬ 
lem to face as if the stages of water had been created by some other 
force. 

Mr. MacInnes. But the results would be different, would they not ? 

Mr. Dixon. If we had a different slope through the river, we might 
obtain, perhaps, a slightly different percentage of flow through the 
channels. 

Mr. MacInnes. You dealt with a certain problem to obtain a cer¬ 
tain amount of compensation. If the water’s level were lower, or 
should become lower, you would have a question of compensation for 
a larger amount to deal with, would you not ? 

Mr. Dixon. You mean if there were more water diverted and less 
water flowing through the Detroit River we would have a less diver¬ 
sion to provide for? 

Mr. MacInnes. You are dealing here with compensation, we will 
say, for 2 inches. Supposing there was a subtraction of water- of 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


53 


another 2 inches. You would have to deal then with compensating 
for a matter of 4 inches. Therefore you would have a different prob¬ 
lem before you to deal with. In the same way, if the level of the water 
should be raised by work below, we will say at the head of Niagara 
Falls, then again you would have a different problem to deal with. 

Mr. Dixon. The conditions would be different; yes, sir. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that your report and your dealing with this 
matter has been in connection with the local situation ? 

Mr. Dixon. The situation as it was determined by our own obser¬ 
vations, and that was under normal conditions at the stage at which 
we worked. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you have dealt with it simply under the cir¬ 
cumstances that you have stated ?. 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Streeter. Mr. MacInnes, may I ask whether you suggest that 
any works are proposed at Niagara which would affect this stage of 
the water near this proposed dam ? 

Mr. MacInnes. I understand so. It is now under investigation by 
another joint commission, the old Waterways Commission. 

Mr. Staunton. Mr. Dixon, I notice in your answers that you did 
not commit yourself to the statement that this location for the dike 
is the best location. You said it was a very desirable location. 
Now, do you differentiate between the best location and a very 
desirable location ? 

Mr. Dixon. Well, it is the best location to correct cross currents, 
and, also, it provides for any compensation that may be needed for 
an increased width in Livingstone Channel. To that extent it is the 
most desirable. If there were no prospects at all of compensation 
being required, then some other location might be chosen equally 
desirable. 

Mr. Staunton. Now, with all the knowledge that you have of the 
conditions that are and that may occur, if you were given an abso¬ 
lutely free hand to build a dike or a dam, or to put some structure 
in the water for the purpose of correcting the objectionable features 
which you think now exist or may hereafter exist, where would you 
put it ? 

Mr. Dixon. Dealing with it as an engineering problem alone, I 
would place the dike where it is now proposed. 

Mr. Staunton. Inject all the other elements that you know of into 
the proposition and tell me where you would place it. 

Mr. Dixon. I think that is a proper location for it. 

Mr. Staunton. Well, why do you qualify your answer by saying, 
“dealing with it as an engineering problem alone” ? 

Mr. Dixon. Well, there are certain reasons advanced by others 
that they think proper, and I do not know what weight they ought 
to have, but for myself I would place the dike where it is proposed. 

Mr. Staunton. You have no mental reservation whatever about it ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. In your opinion, there is no better place for this 
dike ? 

Mr. Dixon. That is my opinion; yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. In your opinion there is no other place as good for 
this dike ? 

Mr. Dixon. That is my opinion; yes, sir. 


54 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Staunton. So it was not necessary for you to say, “very 
desirable.” You say now it is the best thing, in your judgment? 

Mr. Dixon. In my judgment, it is the best. 

Mr. Staunton. You said that the water when it strikes the face 
of this dam will be practically dead water. 

Mr. Dixon. I did not know that I expressed it in that way. 

Mr. Staunton. You used the word “dead.” 

Mr. Dixon. There would be practically no current except at the 
opening that is left. 

Mr. Staunton. Where the water strikes the dam the current will 
cease ? 

Mr. Dixon. It will probably strike the body of almost still water 
before it strikes the dam at all. 

Mr. Staunton. It would be running parallel with the dam when 
it struck, and therefore it would lose its force as a current entirely ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. Why would not that happen if the wall were put 
on the westerly side of the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Dixon. In the area which you are speaking of- 

Mr. Staunton. First, understand me. We agree that there will be 
no current coming off the wall of the dike proposed. It will be dead 
water. Now, if the wall is put on the westerly side of the Living¬ 
stone Channel, why should there be any current coming off that wall ? 

Mr. Dixon. The conditions are different. At the Limekiln Cross¬ 
ing, along the side of the proposed dike, the channel will be of much 
greater width. There will be much greater width from the coffer¬ 
dam to the Canadian shore than there will be from the dike parallel 
to the Livingstone Channel on the west side that you speak of, and a 
volume of water flowing out of the Livingstone Channel will be prac¬ 
tically straight, and at Limekiln Crossing this dike will be off at one 
side in a sort of a pocket. There will be quite an area of nearly dead 
water along that dike out of which will now the water through the 
opening which will go through there at quite a velocity. 

Mr. Staunton. You say that the position is different and the same 
result, of course, will not follow. 

Mr. Dixon. That is it. 

Mr. Staunton. If you built a wall along the westerly side of the 
channel, would not that be as effective as the dike that you now 
propose to build ? 

Mr. Dixon. I think not. 

Mr. Staunton. Have you an engineer’s opinion with regard to it ? 

Mr. Dixon. The current there would deflect from the dike to a cer¬ 
tain extent, and although, perhaps, it may not be troublesome- 

Mr. Staunton (interrupting). Which is the stronger current, the 
one coming down the Livingstone Channel or the cross current ? 

Mr. Dixon. The current coming down Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Staunton. We have heard Col. Patrick’s explanation that 
when a weaker current strikes a stronger current it runs alongside of 
it and does not run into it. 

Mr. Dixon. It does deflect. 

Mr. Staunton. But he described it as running alongside of it. 
He said that if you would examine a large river where a smaller 
river flows into it, you would notice that the waters do not mingle, 
but run alongside of each other, and referred to the Canards River 




THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


55 


and said that the sewage comes out and keeps the Canadian shore all 
the time. Now, if the current coming down the Livingstone Channel 
is the stronger, it will shake off this other current and make it run 
parallel with it and not let it cross it at all. 

Mr. Dixon. They do become parallel after a short distance, but at 
the first point of impact it would be a strong force against the vessel. 

Mr. Casgrain. For what distance? 

Mr. Dixon. About 2,000 feet is the distance through which the 
current crosses the channel; that is, from the point where it is par¬ 
allel to the channel to the point where it becomes parallel to the 
channel again, and at about midway of that distance it is at its maxi¬ 
mum velocity. 

Mr. Staunton. Will you ted me why, where it runs in from this 
river and does not cross the channel in the Detroit River, it should 
cross the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Dixon. The Canards River is a very sluggish stream. It has 
almost no velocity; not nearly so strong as where we propose build¬ 
ing the dike. 

Mr. Staunton. What is the rapidity of the current through the 
Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. Dixon. It is about 3.8 feet per second; about 2£ miles an hour. 

Mr. Staunton. Then the cross current is about half a mile an hour ? 

Mr. Dixon. About three-quarters of a mile an hour. 

Mr. Staunton. And you say that that miles an hour can not 
resist that current at three-quarters of a mile an hour ? 

Mr. Dixon. At the point of maximum velocity it would be about 
If miles per hour; 2\ feet per second. 

Mr. Staunton. At the present time ? 

Mr. Dixon. That was determined last September; yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. But is that since the dam was taken out? 

Mr. Dixon. Since the Livingstone Channel was opened; yes, sir. 

Mr. Rodd. Were you a member of the special board of engineers? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Rodd. The trouble at that time, I think, was a matter of com¬ 
pensation. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Dixon. That was what was anticipated; yes, sir. 

Mr. Rodd. Was not that the special thing considered by the board ? 

Mr. Dixon. Mainly. 

Mr. Rodd. And that compensation can be worked out in other ways ? 

Mr. Dixon. It can; yes, sir. 

Mr. Rodd. And profitably, too, or at a less cost ? 

Mr. Dixon. We have not entered into preparation of plans or 
estimates to determine the approximate cost, but the difference 
would not perhaps be prohibitive or anything of that kind. 

Mr. Rodd. And it was not so much the cross current as the matter 
of compensation ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes; it was a matter of cross current mainly at that 
time, but they dealt mainly with the compensating feature. 

Mr. Rodd. The last witness said that the report of the special 
board of engineers dealt more particularly with the compensating 
features of the proposed dam. I am asking you if that is true? 

Mr. Dixon. They did deal more particularly with the compen¬ 
sating feature, but they anticipated the needs as a means for com¬ 
pensation also. 


56 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Rodd. But their recommendation was based mainly upon 
making compensation for the increased discharge of water. 

Mr. Dixon. For both purposes. 

Mr. Rodd. I presume you are familiar with what they were doing ? 

Mr. Dixon. I know what they recommended, and I know their 
report, and I also know that the statement is made that the main 
body of their report did deal with the compensating feature; in fact, 
that feature of it involved more work and more surveying. The 
cross current was plainly evident at that time. 

Mr. Rodd. Was this or not the important part of their investigation 
at that time and the basis of their report ? 

Mr. Dixon. I did not take it so. I recall the clause to which you 
refer, an*l in reading that I understood that the main body of the 
report dealt with the compensating feature, because of the fact that 
that required more investigation. 

Mr. Rodd. It was the more important at that time, was it not? 

Mr. Dixon. No; I did not think it was; at least not to my recol¬ 
lection. 

Mr. Rodd. I suppose you will agree with the last witness, Col. 
Patrick, that the compensating features are negligible just now ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Casgrain. Building this dike was one of the means of cor¬ 
recting the cross currents. What other means were there? 

Mr. Dixon. We might build a dike parallel to the channel that 
would correct the cross currents. That has already been referred to. 

Mr. Casgrain. Were there any other means ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Casgrain. If the channel for 1 mile were widened 450 feet, 
would you agree to say that the current would then be reduced? 

Mr. Dixon. The cross currents would be reduced somewhat, but it 
would be troublesome. In my opinion, the real danger of the cross 
current is during a period of thick weather when vessels can not 
travel fast. In order to traverse that section of the river safely they 
must use almost full speed, and under conditions of weather when 
objects are not seen clearly they check down and are liable to drift 
against the side of the channel. 

The Chairman. Do those climatic conditions occur frequently ? 

Mr. Dixon. Quite frequently during the fall months when sudden 
snow~ squalls are liable to come. Of course, fogs come occasionally, 
but that is not to be so much feared as sudden snowstorms. 

Mr. King. Mr. Dixon, would it not be a substantial advantage to 
those navigating ships down the lower part of the channel to have a 
dike exposed above water on the line of the channel on the western 
side rather than to have a submerged cut ? 

Mr. Dixon. It would help to mark the channel clearly. 

Mr. King. That is one argument in favor of putting a dike there 
rather than on Bois Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. You agree with Col. Patrick that the proposed compen¬ 
sation is to make up for a possible depreciation of about 2 inches in 
the levels above ? 

Mr. Dixon. If the channel were widened; yes, sir. 

Mr. King. And that at the present moment that is of practically 
no very great interest to the traffic ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 57 

Mr. Dixon. Under present conditions the dike is not needed for 
compensation. 

Mr. King. But even with the Livingstone Channel widened to 450 
feet that compensation of 2 inches is not of any practical interest 
other than as required by the limitations of the Soo Locks ? 

Mr. Dixon. It should be considered, because it limits the draft of 
vessels to that amount. 

Mr. King. Not when they are limited by the Soo Locks. 

Mr. Dixon. By alterations in the Soo Locks the depth there will 
be increased. 

Mr. King. You are referring now to the Davis locks, which are not 
in existence at the present time ? 

Mr. Dixon. They soon will be. 

Mr. King. Now, just one more theoretical question. Supposing 
that a very large question of policy is in existence as to whether or 
not compensatory works are necessary in the Detroit River with 
reference to the Niagara River, with reference to Chicago, and sup¬ 
posing, too, that that question is one of policy as to whether it is wise 
to compensate at the present stage when a somewhat large dispute is 
pending as to the withdrawal at Chicago. Do you think that the 
making up of that 2 inches when the Livingstone Channel is broadened 
to 450 feet is of sufficient importance to warrant an immediate deter¬ 
mination of this question ? 

Mr. Dixon. Some means of compensation, anyway, is needed. 

Mr. King. I am asking you as an engineer and interested on behalf 
of the Federal Government of the United States in improving naviga¬ 
tion throughout the system so far as possible do you think that, 
having regard for the pendency of a large question of policy and the 
question of compensation, it is wise at this stage to attempt to build 
compensating works for the purpose of making good 2 inches in the 
river, 2 inches which have not yet been withdrawn by the broadening 
of the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Dixon. If this prospective change which you have mentioned 
is liable to occur in the near future, it might be well to hold this matter 
in abeyance to see just what the condition would be under which the 
dam would be then built. 

Mr. King. If the prospective change is not likely to occur, is it 
wise at this stage to begin compensatory works which might form 
an element in that discussion? Might it not be better, in your 
opinion, to withhold the question of compensation until we know 
exactly where we are ? 

Mr. Dixon. I think such compensation as would be provided for 
would have so little effect on these other questions that it would be 
negligible in their case. 

Mr. King. To carry that a little further; does not it amount to 
this: That a proposition is now under consideration for a considerable 
expenditure of money which might not be of any particular value in 
the future in the event of the larger compensatory work being 
required ? 

Mr. Dixon. I do not quite understand your question. 

Mr. King. I am suggesting the possibility of larger expenditures 
being required and works being built at other points in the river. 


58 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Dixon. If more compensation should be needed they could be 
put at other places. The expenditure that is now proposed need not 
necessarily be thrown away. 

Mr. King. Would you not prefer, however, to consider the problem 
as a unit at the time when the increased expenditure became 
necessary ? 

Mr. Dixon. It would not seem to me so. 

Mr. King. You think it should be built up on the present improve¬ 
ment ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, I do. In fact, it might be more desirable to make 
compensation in different places and not all in one place. 

The Chairman. What is the difference between the level of the 
Detroit River and the level of the Niagara River or of Lake Erie ? 
Mr. Dixon. Approximately 3 feet. 

The Chairman. The fall is 3 feet? 

Mr. Dixon. That varies somewhat, but it is nearly that. 

The Chairman. What is the difference between the fall at the out¬ 
let of Lake St. Clair and that of Lake Erie and Lake Huron ? 

Mr. Dixon. It is about 9 feet, approximately, between Lake Erie 
and Lake Huron, and 6 feet in the fall in the St. Clair River and Lake 
St. Clair. 

The Chairman. In the event that a greater flowage out of Lake 
Michigan into the Chicago Drainage Canal were permitted than is now 
authorized, why would not compensatory works be necessary at this 

E oint in order to compensate the increased flowage on account of the 
ivingstone Channel ? Would compensatory works be necessary here 
independent of that? 

Mr. Dixon. To provide for additional width of Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel; yes, sir. 

Mr. Turner. Does the question of the level of Lake Michigan by 
reason of the drawing off of water at Chicago affect this question of 
compensation at all? 

Mr. Dixon. That is not a feature that is being considered here. 

Mr. Turner. As an engineering problem, does it affect it at all? 
Mr. Dixon. No, sir. It does affect the stage on Lake Huron and 
Lake Michigan; and if the stages of water on Lakes Huron and 
Michigan were to be held at what they would be if there were no water 
drawn off at Chicago, it would.be necessary to compensate somewhere 
in the Detroit or St. Clair Rivers, but that compensation is not being 
considered in this data. It is simply compensation for the additional 
width of Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Turner. Suppose the water were drawn off there so as to very 
seriously affect the level; would that do away with compensatory 
works here ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir; there would be still compensation necessary. 
Mr. Magrath. If you were told that there would be about 5,000 
second-feet less water coming down here next year, would that change 
your opinion as to the character of this compensatory work that you 
are proposing now ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Casgrain. It would not change your opinion as to the charac¬ 
ter or nature of that work ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir; we are simply making our deductions as to 
the compensation that is necessary for the work at this point. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


59 


Mr. Magrath. But if you knew that there were to be 5,000 second- 
feet less coming down next year, would it have any effect upon your 
present plans ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Magrath. You would still put in those works? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir; we would still claim compensation necessary 
for increased width. 

Mr. Magrath. I am assuming, of course, that something might 
happen within the next twelve months to withdraw, say, 5,000 second- 
feet. If you knew that something was going to happen within the 
next twelve months that would give you 5,000 second-feet less than 
you are getting under normal conditions, would it have any effect 
upon your present plan ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir; unless we were authorized to compensate for 
that additional 5,000 second-feet which is not due to our own im- 

E rovement. If that were probable, then our plans would be changed, 
ut if we were asked to only compensate for the additional change 
in flow that we are creating, our plans would remain as we have sub¬ 
mitted them. 

Mr. King. But your answer to Commissioner Magrath is this: 
That if at the present moment you knew that next year you would 
have 5,000 second-feet less than you have now flowing down the 
Detroit River your plans would not be made exactly as you are 
presenting them now to the court. 

Mr. Dixon. Not if we were expecting to make plans to provide 
for that compensation. 

Mr. King. You mentioned a drop of 3 feet in the Detroit River. 
Mr. Dixon. Approximately that. 

Mr. King. In what part of the river is the greater part of that 3 
foot drop ? 

Mr. Dixon. In the lower stretch of the river. 

Mr. King. Above or below the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Dixon. Between the lower end of the Livingstone Channel 
and the Detroit River. 

Mr. King. In the event of compensatory works or submerged weirs 
being built in the Niagara River and a substantial raise in Lake Erie 
taking place, would not that have such an effect as to make up your 
2 inches in raise ? 

Mr. Dixon. It would; yes, sir. 

Mr. King. And obviate the necessity of this dike, except as to the 
cross current ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Would you deem it necessary to construct this dike 
simply for providing for the 2 inches which you estimate the water 
would be lowered ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Under present conditions ? 

Mr. Dixon. The compensatory features are being considered for 
widening the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Hough. The 2 inches at the present time are not required 
for navigation purposes ? They are not required even if the chan¬ 
nel were widened ? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes. 


60 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hough. At the present time with the condition that the Soo 
Locks are in ? 

Mr. Dixon. I am referring to the Detroit River; that is, to main¬ 
tain levels as I found them. 

Mr. Hough. Now, is there not a variation of more than 3 feet in 
the levels of the river caused by local conditions at times ? 

Mr. Dixon. Do you mean between Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie ? 

Mr. Hough. I mean the variation of the water levels in the De¬ 
troit River in the vicinity of Amherstburg. 

Mr. Dixon. The water fluctuates greatly at times. 

Mr. Hough. From high to low, perhaps 5 or 6 feet ? 

Mr. Dixon. From high to low, perhaps 5 or 6 feet. 

Mr. Hough. And you do not pretend to provide for anything that 
will meet this emergency ? 

Mr. Dixon. Our considerations all have to deal with the normal 
conditions. 

Mr. Hough. And under those circumstances shipping has to tie 
up absolutely, as very frequently happens? 

Mr. Dixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. There is no provision that you could make that would 
overcome such circumstances as those ? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Hough. You spoke about ice jamming there doing damage, 
say 15 years ago? 

Mr. Dixon. It must have been 10 or 12 years ago. 

Mr. Hough. Do you recollect that at that time there was a windrow 
formed at the head of the island and stretched across practically 
in the position that this dike will take if it is built ? 

Mr. Dixon. I do not recall that. 

Mr. Hough. And that it was this windrow acting as a dam that 
• caused the ice to float through that channel and do the damage? 

Mr. Dixon. No, sir; as I recall it there was no ice at all along the 
Canadian shore; only that extending out 300 or 400 feet. 

Mr. Hough. My instructions are from men who recollect the occas- 
sion that the jam was caused by a windrow that took the position 
that this dike would take if it were built ? 

Mr. Dixon. Their recollection is different from mine. 

Mr. Hough. What do you say caused the ice jam at that time? 

Mr. Dixon. It was the wind blowing the ice over to the shore. 

Mr. Hough. But we have the wind every day. 

Mr. Dixon. But you do not have the ice every day. 

Mr. Hough. Do you mean to say that in 15 years it happened only 
once that the wind was blowing in such a direction ? 

Mr. Dixon. Just under those conditions when the ice was broken 
up, when it was quite formed, by a heavy gale. 

Mr. Hough. And you attributed it solely to the wind? 

Mr. Dixon. Practically; yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. What damage did it do; do you remember? 

Mr. Dixon. As I recall it, the ice was piled up on the north end of 
the dock. 

Mi. Hough. It destroyed the waterworks dock, did it not? 

Mr. Dixon. It did some damage to the buildings, I believe. 

Mr. Hough. And part of the dock just below that? 

Mr. Dixon. I do not remember the extent of the damage done. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


61 


Mr. Hough. Have you ever seen the river Canards under certain 
weather conditions going west of Bois Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Dixon. I have not. 

Mr. Hough. You would not say, I suppose, that that muddy 
streak which has been referred to never goes west of the island ? 

Mr. Dixon. I have known the whole river to be muddy during a 
very stormy period when Lake St. Clair water has been agitated. 
I have never seen the muddy streak extend west of Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Strickland. The commissioners asked for some statistics as 
to the vessels plying the Detroit River, and I find that in the year 
1912 there were 1,082 Americans and 168 Canadians. The aggregate 
of all appropriations for the Detroit River up to the present date 
amounts to $11,894,500. 

Mr. Streeter. That is, that money was expended by the United 
States ? 

Mr. Strickland. Expended by the United States. 

(At the request of Mr. King and for the convenience of the witness, 
who had to leave the city, one of Mr. King’s witnesses was examined 
here out of the ordinary course.) 

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. W. H. WEIGHT. 

Capt. W. H. Wright, a witness produced on behalf of the Dominion 
Marine Association, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Mr. King. Have you a master’s papers ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. Since when ? 

Capt. Wright. Fifteen years. 

Mr. King. You are sailing what vessel? 

Capt. Wright. The E. B. Osier. 

Mr. King. She belongs to what company ? 

Capt. Wright. The St. Lawrence & Chicago Navigation Co. 

Mr. King. Of what city ? 

Capt. Wright. Toronto. 

Mr. King. What is the size of that boat ? 

Capt. Wright. 510 feet long, 56 feet beam. 

Mr. King. She is practically one of the largest vessels in Canada ? 

Capt. Wright. The second largest ; her carrying capacity is 10,000 
tons. 

Mr. King. You have heard the discussion before the commission; 
you have been in the room here ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. With reference to the cross current which is said to 
flow in between Bois Blanc Island and the foot of the cofferdam, 
have you had any personal experience of that ? 

Capt. Wright. I went down last fall on the 4th of September. 

Mr. King. That was your first trip down ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. Did you have any trouble. 

Capt. Wright. No. 

Mr. King. The matter has been discussed at some length and 1 
think your opinion will be very valuable; will you tell how the 
current did affect you and how readily you were able to overcome that? 


62 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Capt. Wright. I spoke to several captains who had been down and 
they told me there was a cross current when I got to the foot of the 
dike, and I kept over to the port side and avoided any chances of 
getting set over. 

Mr. King. You got through all right? 

Capt. Wright. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. Did you consider the current a serious difficulty ? 

Capt. Wright. No; I did not think so. 

Mr. Tawney. At what rate of speed were you going ? 

Capt. Wright. Eight or nine miles an hour. 

Mr. Tawney. Did you feel the effects of any cross current at all ? 

Capt. Wright. I can not tell very well; it was a dark night and 
the lights were very uncertain, and I could not tell the same as if it 
was daylight. If I had been going down in daylight I would notice 
the effect more. 

Mr. Magratii. Are you sure you were in the channel ? 

Capt. Wright. Oh, I was in the channel all right. I think I 
would have known it if I had been out of the channel. 

Mr. King. Are we to understand that by carefully holding your 
vessel on to your port side as you went down—that is, toward the 
eastern side of the Livingstone Channel—you overcame the effects of 
the current wdthout any difficulty ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. You were not loaded ? 

Capt. Wright. No; we were light. 

Mr. King. What water v T ere you drawing ? 

Capt. Wright. About 14 feet aft and 4 or 5 feet forward; we had 
our water ballast full of water. 

Mr. King. Under these conditions, which end of your vessel, the 
stern or the stem, would feel the effect of the current most ? 

Capt. Wright. The stern. 

Mr. King. It was not set over sufficiently to cause you any 
difficulty ? 

Capt. Wright. No. 

Mr. King. You mentioned the lights. Have you anything to say 
in reference to the lights. The commission may not be interested in 
it, but I think it is important that w T e should mention it at this stage. 

Capt. Wright. The lights w r ere very bad and you can not see them 
except flickering in and out; I had nothing to steady the vessel on. 

Mr. King. Do you understand that that is the general opinion 
about these lights among navigators ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. Do you understand that the opinion of navigators is 
that until proper lights are there the channel is dangerous at night ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. You expressed an opinion to me as to the choice you 
would make if you came down at night; you said you would prefer 
to anchor above the channel. 

Capt. Wright. That is an opinion expressed by Capt. Frank. 
He told me in Fort William that he would not come down that chan¬ 
nel at night; he said he would anchor in the river. 

Mr. King. On account of the flickering lights ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr King. And the inability to steady your course by these lights? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


63 


Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. Tawney. What are the lights; how is the channel marked? 

Capt. Wright. Red lights on the port side and white lights on the 
starboard side; they are very fast. 

Mr. King. Do you mean there is an interval of light and then a 
quick occupation of the light and a long interval of darkness ? 

Capt. Wright. There is a long interval of darkness and a quick 
flash of light. 

Mr. King. That is the same with all the lights, port and starboard, 
and navigators find them extremely difficult to go by ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes; every one I have spoken to about it is of the 
same opinion ? 

Mr. King. That is the main complaint you have to make about 
the channel ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. Are you, or is any large vessel of the Canadian fleet, 
interested in obtaining greater depth on the Limekiln Crossing at 
present ? 

Capt. Wright. Not at present. 

Mr. King. You are limited on what draught? 

Capt. Wright. We are limited on the draught of the Soo at present. 

Mr. King. Take the Limekiln Crossing; upbound and the limit of 
the channel downbound; your available draught available at the 
Canadian lock at the Soo is 5 or 6 inches less upbound than down- 
bound ? 

Capt. Wright. More than a foot difference; there is 5 inches dif¬ 
ference in the draught upbound and downbound in the Canadian 
lock. 

Mr. King. If the Canadian lock is enough to allow a vessel 19-feet 
6 going down, it is 19 feet going up ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. If it is 21 feet or 22 feet at the Limekiln Crossing, you 
are not very much concerned about an immediate addition to that ? 

Capt. Wright. Not at present. 

Mr. King. I suppose most of the Canadian vessels bound up go 
all the way to Lake Superior ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. On account of the coasting laws which make Fort Wil¬ 
liam their destination ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes; Fort William and Jackfish. 

Mr. King. Are there many cargoes carried in the Georgian Bay? 

Capt. Wright. Yes, quite a few. 

Mr. King. Where to ? 

Capt. Wright. Midland and Depot Harbor. 

Mr. King. Are these large boats ? 

Capt. Wright. Large and small. 

Mr. King. As to them an additional inch or two would be of some 
moment ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. Any vessels for Byng Inlet for the C. P. R. are limited 
as to draft; the Byng Inlet Harbor is less draft? 

Capt. Wright. Yes, it is less draft. 

Mr. Magratii. Have you cross currents alsewhere on that route? 


64 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Capt. Wright. Yes; there is a cross current going into the Cana¬ 
dian locks, not as we enter the lock but going up past the New 
Ontario coal dock at the Canadian Sault there is a strong current 
there which comes down the St. Marys Rapids. 

Mr. Casgrain. What velocity is it? 

Capt. Wright. I can not say. 

Mr. Magrath. Do you regard that cross current as more danger¬ 
ous than that with which we are dealing now ? 

Capt. Wright. I imagine the one at the Sault would be the 
stronger current, but the difference in the two places is this, that in 
going into the Sault you have to go very slow, you are making the 
lock and you can not go fast, whereas going down Livingstone 
Channel you can go 10 miles an hour. 

Mr. Magrath. Do you know of any accident that has occurred at 
the Sault ? 

Capt. Wright. No. 

Mr. Casgrain. Cross currents are not unknown in navigation, 
are they? 

Capt. Wright. No 

Mr. Tawney. Do you think you could safely base your judgment 
on the effect of this cross current by going through the Livingstone 
Channel only once ? 

Capt. Wright. That is what I say; I will probably have a better 
opinion if I went down in daylight. 

Mr. Tawney. Would you not have to go down more than once to 
form an opinion ? 

Capt. Wright. Well, the only difference would be if the next time 
I went down I was going down loaded; I have never been through 
loaded. 

Mr. Streeter. You say that when you went down there this one 
time you kept close over to the port side ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. Streeter. And you did that because of the warnings or sug¬ 
gestions of the captains about the cross currents ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. Streeter. How many captains had told yout about that? 

Capt. Wright. I can not say exactfy, probably about a dozen; 
when we were talking about it in Fort William there were seven or 
eight present then, I think. 

Mr. King. There was some notice issued to the effect that there 
was a cross current there? 

Capt. Wright. Yes; there was a notice in the newspapers. 

Mr. King. It is known to every navigator? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. You would be very glad of a further opportunity to 
test the effect of that cross current before anything is done ? 

Capt. Wright. Oh, yes. 

Mr. King. You don’t set up as an expert merely upon your expe¬ 
rience in that one trip ? 

Capt. Wright. No. > 

Mr. King. And that simply happened to be the extent of your 
experience ? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. King. When was the channel opened ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


65 


Capt. Wright. I think it was the 10th of November, last year; 
at all events it was toward the close of the season. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you think that one trip down would be 
sufficient to enable you to state whether there were any currents 
there or not ? 

Capt. Wright. I think one trip down loaded would be better. 

Mr. King. You went down light? 

Capt. Wright. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. You do not think it would be a positive deter¬ 
mination of the question of currents when you went down light ? 

Capt. Wright. I would prefer to have a trip down loaded before I 
would be absolutely sure. 

Mr. Strickland. Assuming that the lights were the same in both 
channels, which would you prefer to navigate, the Livingstone Channel 
or the Amherstburg Channel? 

Capt. Wright. The Amherstburg Channel. 

Mr. Staunton. Because you know it better? 

Capt. Wright. It is a wider channel and we always like lots of 
room. 

TESTIMONY OF HARRY HODGMAN. 

Harry Hodgman, of the city of Detroit, a witness produced on 
behalf of the United States, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland: 

Mr. Strickland. What is your position ? 

Mr. Hodgman. I am assistant engineer of the Detroit River 
improvements. 

Mr. Strickland. How long have you been assistant engineer ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Since 1910. 

Mr. Strickland. Did you have any commission in the engineer’s 
office prior to that ? 

Mr. Hodgman. I have been connected with the Detroit River 
improvements since 1904. 

Mr. Striclkand. Anything prior to that ? 

Mr. Hodgman. No, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. You are acquainted with the condition of the 
lake levels above the Detroit River and below? 

Mr. Hodgman. To a certain extent; yes. 

Mr. Strickland. You have had under consideration the question 
of putting in a dam in connection with the Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. Hodgman. I have not had active connection with the compu¬ 
tation in connection with the work. Of course I have known what 
was going on and been interested in it. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you feel competent to state whether there 
is any necessity for this dam ? 

Mr. Hodgman. I consider that it is very necessary. 

Mr. Strickland. Why ? 

Mr. Hodgman. On account of the cross currents at present and 
as compensation in case of future widening of the Livingstone 
Channel. 

Mr. Strickland. Which way do the currents flow? 

86342—13-5 


66 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hodgman. In the vicinity of the Livingstone Channel, and 
between Bois Blanc Island and the cofferdam, they cross the channel 
at about 30° angle. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you know the velocity of the current at that 
point ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Yes. I was connected with the tests that were 
made. Practically, as Col. Patrick has said, the maximum we got 
was about 2.8 feet per second and from that they range to a much 
lesser velocity. 

Mr. Strickland. In building this dam would it deflect the water 
to any extent to the Canadian shore ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Yes; I think it would. 

Mr. Strickland. By the opening in that dam would not that 
raise it some ? 

Mr. Hodgman. A certain amount of discharge would go through 
the opening. 

Mr. Strickland. Would it be a harmful current? 

Mr. Hodgman. Do you mean the current in the Amherstburg 
Channel ? 

Mr. Strickland. Yes. 

Mr. Hodgman. No, sir; I think not. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you made any observation as to the dis¬ 
charge of sewage from the Canadian side and the American side ? 

Mr. Hodgman. I have not made any special observations at all. 
I have observed in the rounds of my work which takes me all over 
the river, that there is apparently a great deal more suspension in 
the waters in the American Channel than in the Canadian. If you 
go through the Trenton Channel at certain seasons in the summer, 
you can see suspended matter in the water the same as you see 
specks of dust as you look into the sunlight. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you know anything about the flow of ice? 

Mr. Hodgman. I lived on the shore of the Detroit River for 15 
years and I think I know as much about it as anybody in the vicinity. 

Mr. Strickland. In your recollection, has there been any ice jam 
in the vicinity of Amherstburg ? 

Mr. Hodgman. There has been only one jam that has done any 
damage, so far as I know. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you know the reason of that jam, what was 
the cause of it ? 

Mr. Hodgman. It was caused by the flow of thick ice that was 
driven along the Canadian shore by a westerly wind. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you think the erection of this dam would 
bring the ice in there any more than it would ordinarily go ? 

Mr. Hodgman. I do not know as to the quantity, 1 am sure; I 
do not think it would make any appreciable effect on the amount of 
damage that would be done. 

Mr. Tawney. Without reference to damage would it appreciably 
increase the flow of ice ? 

Mr. Hodgman. The flow through the Amherstburg Channel is 
dependent very largely upon the wind. There is very seldom a time 
when the Detroit River is full of ice. The ice follows one shore or 
the other as the wind blows. In case of a west wind we get ice in 
the Amherstburg Channel and in case of an east wind it goes down 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


67 


the American Channel. I do not think that the conditions that 
would exist after the building of the cofferdam would have materially 
changed the condition of things existing at present, so far as ice is 
concerned. 

Questioned by Mr. Hough : 

Mr. Hough. It would all have to go down the Canadian Channel 
if the dam was built ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Why? 

Mr. Hough. Except what would go through this 300-foot gap. 

Mr. Hodgman. If the wind were from the west it would all go 
through the Canadian Channel. If the wind were from the east it 
would go to the east of Grosse lie. Wlien there is practically no 
wind the ice is quite well distributed over the river in small cakes; 
cakes perhaps from a small size to 100 feet square. 

Mr. Hough. And 40 per cent of that would go west of the island 
without the dam, the same as the water does ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Yes; I think so. 

Mr. Hough. That would all have to go through the Amherstburg 
Channel if the dam were built ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Yes. At the same time the condition would be 
that it would pass through the Amherstburg Channel without doing 
damage. 

Mr. Hough. It would increase the amount 40 per cent. 

Mr. Hodgman. It might. I may say in connection with the ice, 
when it did damage in Amherstburg it took about 20 feet of my house. 

Mr. Hough. That is 15 years ago. 

Mr. Hodgman. I do not think it is so long ago as that; it is the 
only jam, anyway, that has done any damage, so far as I know. 

Questioned by Mr. Staunton : 

Mr. Staunton. What you say now is that the Amherstburg Chan¬ 
nel is practically free at all times from danger from ice ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. And that if this dike is put in there it would make 
it subject to ice dangers that now do not exist ? 

Mr. Hodgman. No; I think not. 

Mr. Staunton. You say 40 per cent more ice will go down that 
channel ? , 

Mr. Hodgman. Forty per cent more might perhaps go down in 
calm weather. 

Mr. Staunton. Forty per cent more will go down when the wind 
is blowing to the Canadian side ? 

Mr. Hodgman. No. 

Mr. Staunton. Why not ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Because it always goes down that channel anyway 
when the wind is in that direction. 

Mr. Staunton. If there is a heavy wind there is a big current there ? 

Mr. Hodgman. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. And this dike is put in for the purpose of guarding 
vessels against the current which shoots between the cofferdam and 
the island; does not that current pull in ice there with it ? 

Mr. Hodgman. It does when there is no wind. 

Mr. Strickland. Would not the placing of the dam there check 
the speed of the ice to a considerable extent ? 


68 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hodgman. I think not. 

(The witness was not further examined.) 

The commission adjourned at 5 o’clock to meet again in the even¬ 
ing after dinner to consider certain matters in connection with the 
reference re level of Lake of the Woods. 

The commission decided to meet at 10 o’clock in the morning to 
continue the hearing of the reference re Livingstone Channel.) 


International Joint Commission, 

Detroit, Mich., Tuesday, February 18, 1913. 

The International Joint Commission met this morning at 10 o’clock 
in the Federal court, pursuant to adjournment of the previous even¬ 
ing, and proceeded to the further hearing of evidence in connection 
with Livingstone Channel. 

Present: James A. Tawney, presiding; Th. Chase Casgrain, K. C.; 
Frank S. Streeter; Henry A. Powell, K. C.; Charles A. Magrath; and 
George Turner. L. White Busbey and Lawrence J. Burpee, secre¬ 
taries. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE. 

William Livingstone, of the city of Detroit, vessel owner, a wit¬ 
ness produced on behalf of the United States, being duly sworn, 
deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland: 

Mr. Strickland. Have you any connection with the Lake Carriers’ 
Association ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. What position do you occupy in connection with 
the Lake Carriers’ Association ? 

Mr. Livingstone. President. 

Mr. Strickland. As president of that association, have you any 
knowledge of the navigation of the Detroit River, the Livingstone 
Channel, and the Lakes ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Can you state something about the navigation of 
vessels through this Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. We have in our association nearly all of the 
modern bulk freighters; we have 467 or 468 steamers, the aggregate 
tonnage of which is about 2,100,000 registered tons. 

Mr. Strickland. Do you know the number of vessels which pass 
through this channel in the navigation season ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Can you give information as to that ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can give it more accurately by reference to the 
report. From April 19 to December 16 last year, a period of 242 days, 
there were 25,238 vessels which passed through the Limekiln Crossing. 
The Livingstone Channel was open for navigation on October 19 last 
year, and from that date to the close of navigation 1,227 vessels passed 
through it. That is a total of 26,465 vessels passing through the 
Detroit River during the season of 1912. This includes all the 
vessels; it does not include the sand boats and tugs employed for 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


69 


the improvement of the lower Detroit River, and there are some 
pleasure craft which are not counted. This is an average of 1 vessel 
every 13| minutes for the entire period of navigation. 

Mr. Strickland. What are the size of some of these vessels ? 

Mr. Livingstone. They run in our fleet approximately from 400 
feet to 617 feet in length. The modern vessels that we have been 
building for the last few years are of the larger size. There were 
two vessels built a year ago 617 feet long, 64 feet beam, 32 feet 
molded depth, with carrying capacity for their full draft of 14,000 
gross tons. They are the two largest bulk freighters in the world; 
that is to say, exclusively bulk freighters. When I say 14,000 tons, 
they could not carry 14,000 tons through the Detroit River on the 
present draft of water; they could carry from Escanaba to South 
Chicago. These vessels are 10 feet more in length and 4 feet more in 
beam than any other two steamers on the Lakes. We have a number 
of 600-footers. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you any statistics showing the investment 
in the Lake vessels passing up and down the Detroit River ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can not give you that now, but I could furnish 
it to you inside of the next three days. 

Mr. Strickland. Can you give it approximately ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Approximately, the value of the fleet of Lake 
carriers would be $120,000,000. 

Mr. Powell. About $50 a ton ? 

Mr. Livingstone. About $52 per ton, roughly speaking. 

Mr. Strickland. As president of the Lake Carriers’ Association, 
have you had any conplaints about the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Oh, yes, a great many complaints. The Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel was opened October 19 last, and at the time we 
opened it it was intended for an entirely down-bound channel; and 
so as to give the masters of our vessels a chance to become familiarized 
with the navigation of the channel, they were given permission to use 
it as a day channel only until the 10tli of November. Col. Patrick, 
the United States Engineer, issued an order extending the time for 
it to be used at night until the 10th of November, the object of that 
being to allow all boats to make a trip up and down through the 
channel in daytime, before using it at night, so as to become familiar¬ 
ized with it. Before the channel began to be used at night the com¬ 
plaints began to come in regarding the cross currents and the 
difficulties in connection with them. When the order came into 
effect to run the channel at night the complaints increased; in fact, 
to such an extent that we have some masters who refused to go 
down it at night on account of the cross currents. Clearly under¬ 
stand this, Mr. Strickland, that it was very late when the channel 
was opened. About November 25 there are a great many of our 
vessels that go out of commission for the season, so that after the 
10th of November there is quite a diminution of the fleet, so that we 
did not have the full pressure we would have in the middle of the 
season. The rule was not so rigidly enforced as it otherwise would 
have been, on account of the fewer vessels being in commission. 
The object of a down channel and up channel is practically this: 
That the great danger on the Lakes now is not so much the stress of 
storm and weather, on account of the way we build our boats—I do 
not say there is not danger from storms—but the greater danger we 


70 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


have to contend with on the Lakes, on account of the enormous 
tonnage which has grown to such proportions, is the danger of 
collision, so that every energy has been bent to try as far as we can 
to get practically a double channel (I will put it that way) between 
Lake Erie and Lake Huron. 

The statistics show that the Detroit River furnished 45 per cent or 
more of the accidents that have occurred on the Lakes; some of them 
were of course minor accidents. One year, I .remember looking 
over the figures pretty carefully at that time, and I think they ran 
up over 55 per cent, so that you can get some idea of how great the 
danger is here, from the fact that there is no navigable stream to-day 
on the face of the globe that is comparable in the amount of tonnage 
which passes through it, with the Detroit River. Our average season 
of navigation is 240 days. With reference to the Sault Canal the 
Government keeps a record and we keep a record of all the passings 
at the Limekiln Crossing. We have two stations where men are em¬ 
ployed, and it is part of their duty to keep a record of every boat that 
passes up and down, so that taking the number of vessels that passed 
last year, something over 26,000, it made an average of one vessel 
every 13 minutes and a fraction, and taking an estimate for the 
amount of tonnage carried, it amounted to 270 tons of freight passing 
the Limekiln Crossing every minute of the 24 hours of the day, all the 
240 days of open navigation. I may add that I think it is very much 
to be regretted that your commission could not have been here 
during the season of navigation and have gone down and seen for 
yourselves. 

Mr. Tawney. I may say we were here on the 3d of December. 

Mr. Livingstone. I beg your pardon; I was absent then. 

Mr. Tawney. You spoke of the complaints made on account of the 
cross currents; did your association receive any complaints on account 
of the inefficiency of the lights in the channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir; they called them blinkey lights, but 
that is not the proper name for them; they are about to be changed. 
Commander MacCormic recommended these lights and they are the 
same lights which are used in the Ambrose Channel outside of New 
York. They have been in operation there for some time, and he was 
very much taken with them; at all events, he thought they were the 
best lights for the purpose, and he recommended them to the depart¬ 
ment and it seems that the department concurred in it. I am in¬ 
clined to think, though I can not speak officially, that these lights will 
be changed this spring because there have been a good many com¬ 
plaints about them. They were only two-fifths of a second light and 
about three and a half seconds dark, and there were so many of them 
and they were not timed exactly together, and they were constantly 
blinking. In the Ambrose Channel, which is 1,000 feet wide, it was 
a very different proposition from this narrow channel which is only 
300 feet. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you any personal experience as to currents 
in the Livingstone Channel; have you observed any at any time ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir; in a limited way. 

Mr. Strickland. Will you describe them, please ? 

Mr. Livingstone. For instance, I have a little boat that I run 
around in a good deal in the summer time,"and naturally I have been 
very much interested in the Livingstone Channel and I have gone 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


71 


down there a great many times before it was opened and since it was 
opened, and I noticed the cross current there. I am frank to say 
that the boat being small and light it may be more affected than a 
larger boat would be. But I went down with the Livingstone, which 
was the first boat through the Livingstone Channel, except the 
Hancock, Col. Patrick’s boat. I was in the pilot house at the time 
and she took quite a little sheer to the westward. In fact her stern 
swung over to the westward to such an extent that for the moment I 
thought the wheelman was a little careless, because I said to him 
rather sharply, 11 Steady, starboard.” There are some witnesses who 
will follow me, masters of ships who are the men behind the guns, and 
they can give you data. I have a great many complaints in the office 
from different masters of our fleet. 

Mr. Strickland. Were there any vessels going down the Living¬ 
stone Channel which had tows, or will there be ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can not answer that question exactly; I am 
reasonably sure that there were some tows went down, but very few. 

Mr. Strickland. If there should be, how would the tows act in 
the cross currents ? 

Mr. Livingstone. If the current is particularly strong there might 
be a disaster. You understand one thing about the Livingstone 
Channel, and that is this: That the channel is only 300 feet wide and 
that when a vessel once gets in the channel it has got to go on; 
it is impossible to turn. Take a boat 600 feet long and she swings a 
little to the port or starboard, as the case may be, and she would be 
against the bank. It is an utter impossibility for her to turn around, 
and the current is behind her and there is only one thing for her to do, 
and that is to keep going on until she gets through; she can not stop. 
The result is that if one of these vessels should swing across the chan¬ 
nel and the down-bound boat coming after her should crash into her 
and sink her it would block the whole of that channel, and it would 
depend of course on the length of time she laid there before she was 
raised as to the amount of mone}^ it might cost navigation. Time is 
the essence of everything on the Lakes nowadays. What I mean by 
that is this, to give an illustration: We have one boat, the William 
C. Corey, that for 25 weeks made a round trip every week between 
Duluth or Two Harbors, carrying ore, loaded bound down and light 
going up, so that with the tremendous tonnage and the essence of time 
which cut such a figure, the loss to navigation interests, to the shipper, 
to the vessel owner, in case the channel was blocked there for any 
length of time would be an enormous amount of money. For instance, 
there is no place on the face of the globe where freight is carried so 
cheaply as here on the Lakes. I think that last year’s average was 
about 7 mills per ton per mile or possibly a shade over that. There is 
no other place on the face of the earth wdiere freights are so low as 
they are here. The only way that freight can be carried for such a 
small amount pf money—in fact they ought not to be carried so low— 
the only way to make a margin is to make time. There is no place 
on the face of the globe either where we have the loading and unload¬ 
ing facilities which we have here. For instance, a boat carrying 
10,500 tons of ore was loaded in 25 minutes. 

Mr. Tawney. If the Livingstone Channel were blocked, would not 
the boats, except those that were in the channel at the time of course, 
use the Amherstburg Channel going down ? 


72 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir; but for that of course there would be 
a general tie-up. 

Mr. Tawney. Have you any statements showing the relative 
tonnage down and the tonnage up the Detroit River ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I could furnish you with that; I can not give it 
offhand, but I will file it. The upbound tonnage of course is very 
much lighter than the downbound tonnage, because many of the ves¬ 
sels run up light. The William G. Palmer broke all records in unload¬ 
ing this year. In about 3 hours and 20 minutes she unloaded 
11,000 tons of ore. 

Mr. Turner. If the Livingstone Channel were blocked and the 
vessels were required to take the Amherstburg Channel going down, 
would that make a difference ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, it would mean quite a delay. We would 
have to have a patrol boat to as far as possible prevent two boats 
getting in the channel. I do not mean to say that two boats can not 
pass in the channel, but they might come with such rapidity and the 
danger is so great that it would have to be handled under Government 
surveillance. The Canadian Government furnished a patrol boat 
last fall there. 

Mr. Turner. I suppose heavy weather sometimes stops the traffic ? 

Mr. Livingstone. We do not count on that because we expect to 
come to anchor in fogs or weather of that kind. 

Mr. Magrath. What is the mean width of the Amherstburg 
Channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. The Amherstburg Channel proper as dredged 
out by our Government and completed is 600 feet; you can count on 
that. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and that is the 
narrowest point in the channel. 

Mr. Tawney. Have you anything further to state, Mr. Livingstone ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I was going to say that relative to the Living¬ 
stone Channel I think there has been possibly a little misunderstanding 
in a way. I asked the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, when the 
project was first brought up, for a survey by the Government engi¬ 
neers, what they call a preliminary survey, and in that request we 
asked the channel to be 600 feet in width. Government engineers 
reported on it and they reported against 600 feet, the reason being 
that they were afraid of the compensating part of it. In other 
words, if the channel were dredged 600 feet in width, they thought 
it would require so much compensation to retain the level of the waters 
that they feared the levels of Lakes Huron, Erie, and Michigan might 
be disturbed, and for that reason they voted against it. Later on a 
bill was introduced in Congress for a 300-foot channel. The engineers 
presented three projects: A, B, and C. A is the present Livingstone 
Channel, the straight channel; B was a channel to run through between 
Stoney Island and Grosse Isle ; plan C was to go through the Ameri¬ 
can and Trenton Channel. That channel would have been entirely 
in American waters, and there was quite a sentiment on the part of 
some to have the channel built entirely in American waters, but 
in the engineers' report it was about approximately 1 % miles longer 
and was going to cost perhaps two and a half million dollars more, 
and in addition to that it would not be a straight channel; there 
would be several bends in it. The Livingstone Channel will be a 
. perfectly straight line. When the matter was studied they decided 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


73 


against the Trenton Channel and thought the relations between 
the Canadian Government and our own Government were so fra¬ 
ternal that the sentiment about whether it was in American waters 
or Canadian waters did not count for much, the relations between 
the two countries being so reciprocal, and they decided in favor of 
putting the channel where it is at present. 

Then, when they were blasting the rock cut, something over a mile 
in length, the vessel interests knew, and it was so represented, they 
thoroughly understood it, that we intended later on to get that chan¬ 
nel widened when certain difficulties were settled in the way of com¬ 
pensation, and so forth. I presented it to the River and Harbors 
Committee that if the Government would widen that portion of the 
rock cut between the cofferdams that the Government would save 
money enough to more than do the additional work. In other words, 
when the cofferdam was taken away, if it were taken away, the work 
would have to be done in the wet, and that would very largely increase 
the cost of it, and, in addition to that, while it was being done in the 
wet it would be a great hindrance to navigation. The saving was 
very great. For instance, I think, if my memory serves me right, that 
the bid for doing the work in the dry was $1.24 per cubic yard, and 
the bid for doing the work in the wet was $2.24 or $2.25 per cubic 
yard, so that the difference between the two, by having it done dry 
when the cofferdams were there, more than saved the amount ex¬ 
pended; while the 450 feet in the rock cut is really of no advantage 
to us at the present time, and the balance of it being more of clay 
and shale, will be out of the way entirely for widening the channel— 
the other 150 feet which it is really the intention to do later on if 
there is no prohibition. 

Mr. Streeter. You referred to plan A as being the present Living¬ 
stone Channel; are you not incorrect about that; was not plan A 
in relation to the Amherstburg Channel and plan B to the Livingstone 
Channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. No, sir; I think I am correct about that; the 
engineers will be able to show that. There were three plans pre¬ 
sented, A, B, and C, and I think A was the present Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel, the straight channel, and B was the one between Stoney Island 
and Grosse lie—although I would not be positive about it, it may 
have been A, B, and C,"or B, C, and D. I find on reference that you 
are correct, Gen. Streeter, B is the Livingstone Channel. 

Questioned by Mr. Macinnes, K. C.: 

Mr. MacInnes. Have there been any accidents to any vessels 
since the Livingstone Channel was opened, by reason of that cross 
current ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I do not recall any at the present moment. 
One vessel was reported as having trouble. I have reports of what 
they claim were narrow escapes. But we.have some masters here 
and they will give evidence. I generally kept these reports for my 
own knowledge, and at the present time I can not state positively 
about it. You understand that the channel was used very little at 
night, and it being opened late in the season the heavy part of the 
transportation was gone. The proportion of those who used it at 
night, as compared with those who used it in the daytime, was small. 


74 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. MacInnes. As to the possible accidents you speak of, you do 
not know whether it was due to the cross current or to the blinking 
lights ? 

Mr. Livingstone. They claim this was due entirely to the cross 
current; you get the blinking lights most in the regular cut. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you do not know definitely even to this one 
possible accident? 

Mr. Livingstone: I do not. 

Mr. MacInnes. I understand that this cross current strikes the 
channel where it is only 300 feet wide ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. I understand you also to say that if the channel 
were widened there would be less difficulty, obviously, in dealing 
with currents ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can not answer that question, because that is 
an engineering proposition: I do not know. 

Mr. MacInnes. There would of course be less difficulty in maneuver¬ 
ing a vessel if it were wider ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Surely. 

Mr. MacInnes. This current is below where the cofferdam is ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Where the cofferdam was. 

Mr. MacInnes. And the vessels are coming downward, this is the 
down channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that before the vessel gets into this current, 
the mariner has entered somewhat before upon the narrow channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that when the current strikes the vessel the 
mariner will be in a condition of anxiety in taking care of his vessel; 
he will have had warning some time before that he is in a difficult 
place ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Oh yes, a man who has had experience going 
through that channel, naturally would know about where the cross¬ 
current will strike it. 

Mr. MacInnes. What I meant was that the mere fact that he 
enters upon the narrow channel will make him take greater care? 

Mr. Livingstone. He has to take care anyway. 

Mr. MacInnes. So that he will be in a position of taking greater 
care when he meets with this current some time later ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes; because it is the duty of every master to 
be on deck when he goes through that channel and have command 
of his boat. 

Mr. MacInnes. It is not until after he has passed through that 
channel that he meets the current ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I do not believe I quite understand what you 
are trying to get at. 

Mr. MacInnes. It is not as if the current came upon him suddenly 
in the open part of navigation; when he meets the current he has been 
dealing with his ship in a narrow channel some time before. If this 
channel were widened to 450 feet and if the flickering lights were 
made right, what would you say as to the difficulties of this cross 
current ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can not answer that question because that is 
really an engineering question. As to whether if the channel were 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 75 

widened, it would reduce the force of the cross current, I can not 
answer that question, I do not know. 

Mr. MacInnes. You have told us it would make navigation easier? 

Mr. Livingstone. Certainly, because we would have more room to 
navigate. I would be glad to have a 600-foot channel if that were 
possible. 

Mr. MacInnes. And the reason why there was difficulty as to the 
wider channel was this question of compensation ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MacInnes. You have studied the question of the diversion of 
the waters of Lake Michigan at Chicago, have you not ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Somewhat. 

Mr. MacInnes. And if that diversion were lessened, these compen¬ 
sation works that you speak of, which it would be necessary for 
the wider channel, would not be necessary to be put in, is that 
correct ? If there was not a diversion at Lake Michigan, compensa¬ 
tion works would not be necessary even though of the widened channel 
to 600 feet ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I suppose you allude to the water being reduced 
so many feet per second at the Chicago drainage canal ? 

Mr. Macinnes. Yes. 

Mr. Livingstone. If you mean to ask me if I believe that the 
Chicago Drainage Canal affects the level of the Lakes, I say absolutely 
yes. 

Mr. Macinnes. And the diversion of the waters at Chicago there¬ 
fore makes compensation works necessary ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I do not.understand that question. 

Mr. Macinnes. If you were to widen the channel compensation 
works would be necessary, because there would not be a sufficient 
depth of water. 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. Macinnes. And the diversion of the water at Chicago affects 
the depth of the water at this spot? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Macinnes. Therefore if the diversion at Chicago were stopped, 
there would be greater depth at this point ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I believe so. 

Mr. Macinnes. Then if the channel were widened to 600 feet and 
we had this greater depth, these compensation works which you 
suggest as an outcome must be necessary ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I did not say that ; I do not know. You asked 
me the question if compensation works would not be necessaiy. 

Mr. Macinnes. Yes. 

Mr. Livingstone. I think there would be some compensation 
necessary but I can not answer that question as intelligently as one 
of our engineers could. 

Mr. Macinnes. That would be a question of degree? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Macinnes. But if the diversion at Chicago were lessened to 
the same extent as the compensation that was required at this spot, 
obviously there would be no difficulty in widening the channel. If, 
as the engineers tell us, the diversion was stopped to the same extent 
as compensation is necessary, then the difficulty disappears. 


76 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Livingstone. I should say, from a layman’s standpoint, that 
it would lessen it because at present the Chicago Drainage Canal is 
taking about 7,000 cubic feet per second. We have reason to believe, 
although we do not know positively, that that sometimes runs up to 
10,000 cubic feet per second. The navigation interests here are 
absolutely opposed to this withdrawal of the water. I may add, by 
the way, that the Secretary of War has just made a decision against 
their taking more water than at present. 

Mr. Macinnes. You appeared yourself before the Secretary of War 
with regard to this matter ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Macinnes. And you protested against this diversion ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir; absolutely. 

Questioned by Mr. King: 

Mr. King. I hope you will understand the questions that I ask on 
behalf of the Canadian marine, as realizing fully that I know we are 
tiavelling in the same boat, and that any questions of mine are 
entirely for the purpose of eliciting facts which may have been over¬ 
looked in your previous answers. 

Mr. Livingstone. I quite understand that. 

Mr. King. You have stated that you appeared at Washington on 
behalf of your interests to oppose the diversion at Chicago ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. Our association passed resolutions 
against it and Mr. Harvey G. Goulder and myself and quite a number 
of other members of the association protested. 

Mr. King. And all that has been done since then is the decision of 
the Secretary of War limiting the amount of water? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. King. You are aware that that decision of the Secretaiy of 
War has not yet been cairied into practical effect? 

Mr. Livingstone. I understand it is going to be appealed. It is 
within the last three or four weeks since he has rendeied that decision. 

Mi. King. In other words, the fight is still on ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Oh, yes; absolutely. 

Mr. King. And you would be very sorry, just as I would be very 
sorry, to do any tiling at all that would piejudice the interests of 
navigation with refeience to that pending discussion at Chicago? 

Mr. Livingstone. Surely, but we might differ as to what that 
would be. 

Mr. King. Exactly, but you would quite agree that we should not 
in any way discuss at the present time questions of compensation 
which might become part of that discussion ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Well, I would have to believe that was so; I 
would have to be satisfied as to that. 

Mr. King. Exactly, but if you were under the impression that the 
discussion of compensatory works at present would become an 
element in the Chicago question, that would somewhat influence you 
against going into that question at this stage? 

Mr. Livingstone. Well, there are a good many factors to be con¬ 
sidered in connection with that. 

Mr. King. That is entirely a supposititous question. 

Mr. Livingstone. I will answer it in this way: If I were satisfied 
in my own mind and had every reason to believe that taking up the 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


77 


question—I suppose that is the point you want to get—that taking 
up this question of building this intermediate dam would interfere 
in any way seriously with the progress of the drainage canal question, 
as we call it, it would give us food for reflection and we might hesitate. 
On the other hand, I want to say this by way of explanation: That 
from my present knowledge and present experience I fail to see how 
the building of a dam on the present site—I am not speaking of a spe¬ 
cific site; I am speaking of the intermedial proposition—that is a 
question for engineers to decide, whether the point they selected is the 
best. I assume that they have selected the best site because they 
have experience and they chose it after careful reflection. I fail to 
see how our building intermedial works at present is going to inter¬ 
fere with the Chicago proposition. I may be mistaken about it, but 
if I were convinced I would look at its difficulties. What I want to 
impress on your mind is this: The Limekiln Channel, as we call it, has 
been to the Lakes what Hell Gate used to be to New York. It has 
been a barrier to navigators from the beginning, and the result is that 
it is a crucial point where 80 per cent of all the tonnage of the Lakes 
goes through, and, of course, there are vessels, you understand, that 
trade to other points, which stop short of it. 

Mr. King. We all know that, I think. 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, but 80 per cent goes through there, and it 
is a matter of the greatest interest to everybody interested in navi¬ 
gation, to the shippers and to the great public. The people get the 
benefit of all these low freight rates. The statistics show that since 
the first appropriation that was made for the Great Lakes in the year 
1820 the engineers have reported to the Government that in one year 
there has been more saved in the reduction of freight rates than the 
entire money appropriated from 1820 down to the present time. The 
importance of having safe navigation there is so great that I would 
be very slow to concede that the importance of the one would weigh 
against the other. I may say again that the Lake Carriers’ Associa¬ 
tion are absolutely, as a unit, opposed to the increase of water through 
the Chicago Drainage Canal. That is the best answer I can give. 

Mr. King. With reference to the Limekiln Crossing, that has been 
increased in width to 600 feet ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir, the easterly channel. 

Mr. King. Has that been done recently ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, they have just completed the work a year 
ago, before the Livingstone Channel was opened this year, during the 
past summer. 

Mr. King. Was it the practice to hold up boats above and below 
the Limekiln Crossing ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. The Canadian Government charters a 
boat called the McCarthy which acted as a patrol there. It depended 
on circumstances whether they would hold the boats; it depended on 
how they were congested and somewhat on the weather. A great 
many accidents occurred there; one boat would get temporarily on 
the ground. 

Mr. King. I asked the question with reference to an answer you 
gave the commission a little while ago, that if the Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel became blocked it would be necessary to establish a patrol system 
in the Amherstburg Channel, to hold boats up, and you say that would 
depend on circumstances ? 


78 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Livingstone. Yes, I think we will have to have a patrol boat 
anyway, because we broke all records last year and I think we will 
break all records this year. 

Mr. King. Having regard to that, it would not make much differ¬ 
ence whether the Livingstone Channel were blocked or not ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Oh, yes, it would make a good deal of difference 
in the delay, because they would have to take turns. 

Mr. King. If the Livingstone Channel, by any accident, became 
blocked, traffic would not be tied up ? 

Mr. Livingstone. No. 

Mr. King. But it would be necessary to establish a patrol system— 
and with regard to the Limekiln Crossing, may I ask what length is 
the Limekiln Crossing ? 

Mr. Livingstone. What we call the Limekiln Crossing proper 
is about miles; it is really more in a way. 

Mr. King. I mean the narrow cut of 600 feet? 

Mr. Livingstone. I am told by Col. Patrick it is about three-quar¬ 
ters of a mile where the heavy rock cut is, and then there has to be 
reckoned above and below that; Ballards Reef is part of that. 

Mr. King. You say you have no personal knowledge of whether 
tows have been taken down the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. No, but I can get it from the office in a few 
minutes. I do not like making any statements with reference to a 
matter which I do not absolutely know about. 

Mr. King. At the same time you are fairly familiar with the con¬ 
ditions in the Detroit River ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. King. Probably no one in Detroit is more familiar than you 
are, unless it be one of the engineers? 

Mr. Livingstone. Possibly so. 

Mr. King. Do you think that the experience of one month, say the 
month of November, at the very end of the season, is sufficient to 
afford the commission full evidence with regard to that channel, 
when you yourself are unable to say at this moment whether any tows 
went down or not ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I would not say that. 

Mr. King. It would be fair if a longer period were allowed to test 
the navigation in the channel rather than to take the month of 
November only? 

Mr. Livingstone. It might be so to some degree, but of course 
the heavier the tonnage passing through there the greater the per¬ 
centage of liability to trouble would be. 

Mr. King. You suggested that within your own knowledge some 
boats had anchored above the channel rather than run it at night ? 

Mr. Livingstone. They may have anchored above Ballards Reef; 
they may anchor there because of fogs. 

Mr. King. You have no personal knowledge of that? 

Mr. Livingstone. No; I have not; because that was not our expe¬ 
rience, because a good many of our masters were fearful to go in there 
at night, and the result was that in violation of the rules they went 
down the old channel. 

Mr. King. Is it not so that their complaints were directed to the 
lights with reference to the navigation at night ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 79 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes; there were great complaints about the 
lights in the entrance to the channel. 

Mr. King. And steps are being taken to correct that? 

Mr. Livingstone. They are working at it now. When I was in 
Washington the other day, I found that Mr. Putnam and the light¬ 
house inspector of this district have been making a series of experi¬ 
ments in changing the lights. What will be done I can not say. 

Mr. King. Having regard to existing conditions, you heard the 
proposal yesterday for a dike or embankment on the west side of 
the submerged cut of the Livingstone Channel extending down below 
the cofferdam ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. Having regard to existing conditions, do you not think 
that would assist very materially in the navigation past these cross 
currents and that it would to some extent lessen the cross current or 
destroy it ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Well, I can not answer that question; I do not 
feel competent to answer it; that is an engineering question. 

Mr. King. As a navigator of experience you would know that such 
a dike on the starboard side of the vessel bound down would afford 
her very substantial means of keeping in the channel, which she is 
without now? 

Mr. Livingstone. Well, all the cross currents we have had so far 
come from the eastward, and these vessels sheering to the westward, 
I would not want to enter on a discussion of that. 

Mr. King. You could at least answer that the presence of such a 
dike past the bank of the submerged cut would be of material 
assistance to vessels in the way of guiding their'course down the 
channel. 

Mr. Livingstone. If it is merely for the purpose of guiding vessels 
through the channel, I do not think it is at all necessary, because we 
will have that channel so thoroughly lighted that when they get 
there they will have all the guide they want. 

Mr. King. I thought it was suggested that vessels were liable to 
get in trouble on occasions when fog is present, and they were unable 
to pick up the aids to navigation on each side. You do not take that 
position ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I take this position: That no man would think 
of going into that channel in a fog; he would be utterly unfit for his 
position if he did. 

Mr. King. Then you may remove that from consideration entirely. 

Mr. Livingstone. Eliminate fogs entirely; it is barely possible 
that a fog might come on so quickly that a man might get caught in 
it, but it would be the exception of the rule. 

Mr. King. We can remove this from'the discussion. 

Mr. Livingstone. Let me say this, and it is all I can say: With 
40 years’ experience in the vessel business I have always found that 
when our United State Engineers Board had gone into these matters 
carefully and made a report, just the same as they made in this case, 
experience later on almost invariably demonstrated that they were 
right. That is about all I can say about that. 


80 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Questioned by Mr. White, K. C.: 

Mr. White. You say that your masters complain about this 
channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. White. Would not that be very natural on the part of masters 
going through a new channel for the first time ? 

Mr. Livingstone. To a certain extent, yes. 

Mr. White. To a very large extent ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Men are proverbially timid about a new channel. 

Mr. White. They will naturally go down the Amherstburg Channel 
that they know about, even in defiance of the regulations, rather 
than risk a channel they do not know. 

Mr. Livingstone. Some of them would. 

Mr. White. A good many of them would. 

Mr. Livingstone. I am not prepared to say what percentage. 

Mr. White. Never mind about the percentage; but that is the 
horse sense way of looking at it. 

Mr. Livingstone. It is natural for a man with responsibility upon 
his shoulders to prefer to go the way he knows than the way he 
knows not of. 

Mr. White. Quite so. Another question—the lateness of the sea¬ 
son and the kind of weather which prevailed in November and Decem¬ 
ber when the channel was opened would, to a certain extent, counter¬ 
balance and even up the crowded condition of the channel during the 
summer months; that is, it is easier to navigate during June, July, 
and August. 

Mr. Livingstone. Certainly, you would have much more daylight 
to commence with. 

Mr. White. Apart from that, the one would about even up the 
other, I suppose, as to the danger? 

Mr. Livingstone. Pardon me, I do not understand you. 

Mr. White. There are large numbers of vessels going down in the 
summer months and that creates a condition of danger because of 
the crowded condition of the channel. 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes; it is congested. 

Mr. White. Then that congested condition ceases when your 
boats go out of commission in December? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. White. Then comes the danger of bad weather in the channel, 
snowstorms, and all that sort of thing? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. White. And I ask you whether it is not a question of evening 
up as to the danger in that channel? 

Mr. Livingstone. Do I understand you to ask if I believe the 
difference in the weather would equalize, so as to compensate for the 
danger of congestion ? 

Mr. White. Is that so? 

Mr. Livingstone. I should think not. 

Mr. White. It would help somewhat to even it up. 

Mr. Livingstone. It might to some degree, surely. For instance, 
if boats are going down the easterty channel and there were not as 
many vessels passing up, the danger of collision would be lessened. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


81 


Mr. White. A boat might be caught in that channel with a sudden 
snowstorm, after it had entered the channel—is there not considera¬ 
ble difficulty in entering the channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Do you mean the new channel? 

Mr. White. Yes; from what they call Ballards Keef? 

Mr. Livingstone. Ballards Beef is above that channel; the work 
on Ballards Keef will be completed in May, I understand. 

Mr. White. It is at the entrance of the Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. Livingstone. It is really a part of it. 

Mr. White. Your navigators found difficulty in getting into the 
channel; that was one cause of complaint? 

Mr. Livingstone. There certainly was an obstruction there. 

Mr. White. I am not questioning the obstruction; I am talking 
about complaints made by your men. 

Mr. Livingstone. There were a great many complaints about 
Ballards Keef. 

Mr. White. That was an important element of their objection to 
using that channel? 

Mr. Livingstone. No, I think not. Would you allow me to ex¬ 
plain. I do not want to make a statement without putting my 
meaning clearly before the commission. For instance, they are still 
at work on that and I think the engineers expect to have it done in 
May. Here is the difficulty with that channel: It is 600 feet wide, 
and our Government engineers, working at it, take, for instance, half 
of it or 300 feet; they took the easterly 300 feet and finished that 
and then moved over to the 300 other feet and the result is we only 
had half of the channel and with the dredges working there there 
was considerable obstruction. 

Mr. White. I do not catch the idea; I do not care about the work 
they are doing; what I want to know is whether the men who are 
navigating your ships up and down that channel, an4 have filed 
objections, have been actuated to any extent by the difficulty of 
entering that Livingstone Channel through that Ballards Keef? 

Mr. Livingstone. I think not. 

Mr. Casgrain. Is there much freight carried in tows now? 

Mr. Livingstone. There is a great deal of it done, not so much 
in the nature of the general run of freight, ore and otherwise; that 
has been reduced to a very small percentage. But the lumber ves¬ 
sels almost invariably have tows, comprised sometimes of two and 
three and sometimes as high as four. 

Mr. Casgrain. But you say that is a small proportion now? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, as concerns the tows. I remember the 
time when there used to be nine or ten barges after a tug. 

Mr. Casgrain. Is that done away with? 

Mr, Livingstone. Yes, that is done away with. In 1866 there were 
only 7 per cent of steam on the whole lakes as against 93 per cent of 
steam at the present time. Last year, there were less than 4 per cent 
sail and 96 per cent steam, and that included a few consorts. 

Mr. Powell. The barges are not used on the large lakes; it is on 
river navigation ? 

Mr. Livingstone. In the lumber trade they are used on the lakes, 
and there are some that are used in the ore trade but it is diminishing 
all the time. 


86342—13-6 


82 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Powell. Can you give us approximately an idea of about how 
far above the cofferdam is this Baflards Reef; is it half a mile ? 

Mr. Livingstone. A little more than that, about three-quarters of 
a mile, about 4,000 feet. 

Mr. Powell. I can not see how that would interfere with the 
entrance to the channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I did not say it did. I spoke of the difficulties 
of navigating that part of the river on account of the construction 
work being done on it; I did not mean to be understood in any other 
way. 

Questioned by Mr. Hough: 

Mr. Hough. Can you get us that information, Mr. Livingstone, 
regarding vessels passing through that channel with tows ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. I am instructed that vessels have gone through with 
as many as three tows. 

Mr. Livingstone. Very likely that was so; they would be lumber 
vessels; that is likely so. 

Mr. Hough. Do you know the name of the vessel that is said to 
have met with an accident in that channel ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I understand it was Ward Ames that had 
difficulty there, but I am not positive about that. 

Mr. Hough. My instructions are that this accident took place nearly 
a mile below the point where the cross current is said to set in ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I did not state it as a fact; I do not want you to 
attach any particular weight to that, because I have not looked it up. 
Some of our masters will know. I can get the information later 
as to the location of the accident. 

Mr. Hough. Was it in the year 1912 that 45 per cent of the total 
accidents on the Great Lakes took place in the Detroit River ? 

Mr. Livingstone. No, sir; I have not the statistics for 1912; it was 
about four years ago; it is three years ago since I had the last statistics. 
We have had a great many collisions in the Detroit River. Of course, 
included in that are minor accidents. For instance, on the Limekiln 
a vessel would get aground and be aground a few hours or a couple of 
days and then get off. 

Mr. Hough. There were a great many accidents last year on the 
Limekiln Crossing andBallards Reef? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can get a statement as to that accurately in 
the course of the next three days because we have to make a regular 
report to the Government. I do not happen to have it with me now. 

Mr. Hough. As far as you know, no accidents whatever occurred in 
the Livingstone Channel due to this cross current ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I can not say there did. I have had the reports 
of the masters as to the difficulties of the cross current they had to 
overcome, and how much care they had to use, and that it was 
dangerous to use on that account. 

Mr. Hough. Do you think the refusal of some of your captains to 
go down that channel at night was not very largely due to the 
defective lighting ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I think it was so in some cases. 

Mr. Hough. Rather than the cross current ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


83 


Mr. Livingstone. I would not say that. It was due to two 
causes. First, no master likes to take a strange channel at night 
when he has not been there before, and, second, I am frank to say 
to you that I do not like the lighting of the channel. 

Mr. Livingstone. And in the third place, perhaps they were 
scared out of this channel by the rumors that had got abroad as to the 
dangerous current? * 

Mr. Livingstone. That may have some effect unquestionably. 

Mr. Hough. And they were unnecessarily scared. 

Mr. Livingstone. Another thing which is making it a little 
difficult is that at the entrance of the channel it is like the parting 
of the ways; you come down from Ballards Reef and the Amherst- 
burg Channel goes to the eastward and the Livingstone Channel to the 
right, and there should be a lighthouse right there in the apex with 
a distinguishing light which can not possibly be mistaken for any 
other light. I am frank to say that a master going down there, 
'with the multitude of lights there are there, finds it pretty difficult, 
in the absence of some specific light that is an object of itself and by 
itself, to guide him. I am trying now to get our Canadian friends 
to put a lighthouse there, and one of the very material dangers of this 
new channel is, that as yet it is not properly indicated. We hope it 
will be in the spring but it was not quite as it should be last fall. 

Mr. Hough. And that is one of the dangers now. 

Mr. Livingstone. All these are factors. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. W. C. BROWN. 

Capt. W. C. Brown, a witness produced on behalf of the United 
States, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland: 

Mr. Strickland. Capt. Brown, are you connected with the lake 
traffic ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. How long have you been engaged in the lake 
traffic with vessels ? 

Capt. Brown. As master? 

Mr. Strickland. Or in any other capacity ? 

Capt. Brown. Fifty years. 

Mr. Strickland. Wnat kind of a vessel do you command now ? 

Capt. Brown. I command a steamer 550 feet long, 56 feet beam, 
32 feet molded depth. 

Mr. Strickland. What is her name ? 

Capt. Brown. The Frank C. Ball. 

Air. Strickland. Between what points do you ply ? 

Capt. Brown. Duluth, Chicago, and Lake Erie points. 

Mr. Strickland. Then you carry what ? 

Capt. Brown. Iron ore, coal, and grain. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you any recollection respecting the Living¬ 
stone Channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. What is it? 

Capt. Brown. I passed through that channel three times last fall. 

Mr. Strickland. What were your experiences in going through 
there; did you notice any current? 


84 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Just you tell the commission about that. 

Capt. Brown. Before passing through that channel I made what 
inquiries I could with regard to the cross currents. I had heard 
there were cross currents there. Naturally, I got all the information 
I could. After leaving the rock cut I guarded against the cross 
currents which exist at the head of Bois Blanc Island, holding my 
vessel up to the eastward. When I got down just above the gas 
buoy at the upper end of Bois Blanc my vessel commenced to drift 
to the westward. As I saw that I took a range on the upper end of 
the east dike and some other object to notice how she did drift, 
and I saw there was quite a bit of a drift there and Lstarboarded my 
wheel and held her up more to the east side of the channel. Before 
I got out of that cross current I thought my ship was at least two- 
thirds if not three-quarters of the way across the channel. She had 
drifted from three-quarters of the width of the channel to the east¬ 
ward to three-quarters of the width of the channel to the westward. 

Mr. Strickland. In spite of the fact that you had your wheel over ? 

Capt. Brown. I did not have my wheel over all the time. 1 put 
my wheel over long enough to head her up and then steady her. 

Mr. Casgrain. That was the first time you went through the 
Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Did you have any different experience on other 
trips through the channel ? 

Capt. Brown. The next time I went through the channel, I 
slowed my vessel down entering the channel to make a sort of a test 
movement of it. I slowed her down to a slow gait entering the 
channel. I did not find so much difficulty with regard to cross 
currents as I did down below. When I got down below my vessel 
was not 20 feet from the west bank when I got to where the cross 
current is, going at a slow rate of speed. 

Mr. Strickland. What experience did you have on your third 
trip down ? 

Capt. Brown. The third time, I never checked her at all from the 
time I entered Ballards Reef Channel till I got out of the Livingstone 
Channel, and I noticed a smaller percentage of drift on that trip 
than I did before, although there was a perceptible drift at that time. 

.Mr. Strickland. If, for any reason, your vessel had become 
disabled or stopped within the channel, could you have anchored ? 

Capt. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. And what would be the result? 

Capt. Brown. The result would be that she would drift against 
the west bank. 

Mr. Strickland. Is there any danger of having trouble in' the 
channel on account of a fog or storm coming up ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes; when a fog or snowstorm comes up it has to 
catch you at some point somewhere, and it is as liable to catch you 
there as at any other place. 

Mr. Strickland. Were your three trips through the Livingstone 
Channel under favorable weather conditions? 

Capt. Brown. Daylight at all times. 

Mr. Strickland. And favorable weather conditions? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 85 

Mr. Strickland. Do you ever tow any barges after your steamer ? 

Capt. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Tawney. How long do you say you have been navigating the 
Great Lakes ? 

Capt. Brown. I have been navigating the Great Lakes 50 years, 35 
years as master. 

Mr. Tawney. You have passed through the Livingstone Channel 
three times ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tawney. Based upon your experience as master and navigator, 
is it your judgment that this channel can not be navigated with safety 
without some means to prevent these cross currents ? 

Capt. Brown. It certainly is. 

Mr. Strickland. What is your opinion as to navigating that chan¬ 
nel under unfavorable weather conditions and stronger currents; 
would it be more dangerous ? 

Capt. Brown. I should think it would. 

Mr. Strickland. Are there possibilities of weather and currents 
that would make it more difficult to navigate the Livingstone Channel 
than when you went through ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Would you describe something of their char¬ 
acter ? 

Capt. Brown. There are times when the smoke settles down on that 
part of the river beyond the sulphite works, and I have seen times 
when you could not see from one light to the other or on a hazy morn¬ 
ing. At such times as that it would he hazardous to go down that 
channel. * In fact if I saw those conditions before I started I would 
not go down. 

Mr. Strickland. It would make it more difficult to hold the center 
of the channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Casgrain. What is the area of the danger sphere in that chan¬ 
nel ; what is the length of it ? 

Capt. Brown. The danger sphere is about 2,000 feet. 

Questioned by Mr. King : 

Mr. King. The first trip down you were taken somewhat unawares 
by the curerent ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, as to the location; I did not know just where 
the location was. 

Mr. King. And on the second trip you were experimenting on a 
slow speed ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. And on your third trip down you had gained such expe¬ 
rience that by keeping your boat going at a good speed you were able 
to overcome the current all except what you call a perceptible current ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. King. On your fourth trip down I suppose you could do better ? 

Capt. Brown. I could not do any better, because I was going full 
speed with her on the third trip and I could not do any more. 

Mr. King. When you talk about a perceptible drift, how close 
would that take you to the west bank ? 


86 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Capt. Brown. I did not get closer to the west bank than the middle; 
I held up to the eastward more on leaving the dike. I was east of the 
middle of the channel all the time until I got to the place the cross 
current strikes and then I got to the middle of the channel. 

Mr. King. You did not get west of the middle of the channel? 

Capt. Brown. Not the third trip, because I guarded against that. 

Mr. King. You don’t know of any accidents that have occurred 
in the channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Only by hearsay and by the newspapers. 

Mr. King. Was any boat driven up on the west bank£ 

Capt. Brown. No; there was a boat driven over so far that she 
struck. 

Mr. King. Where ? 

Capt. Brown. At.the.lower end of the cross current. 

Mr. King. What boat was that ? 

Capt. Brown. The Ward Ames. 

Mr. King. Was that on her first trip ? 

Capt. Brown. I do not know anything about it. 

Mr. King. Is her master here ? 

Capt. Brown. Not that I know of. 

Mr. King. You say it was the Ward Ames% 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. King. Do you know anything about any defect in her steering 
gear? 

Capt. Brown. I never heard. I saw a newspaper article and was 
told by a gentleman here that she struck there. 

Mr. Casgrain. Was there any investigation in that case? 

Capt. Brown. Not that I know of. All I know about it is what I 
heard and I saw a newspaper article at the time. 

Questioned by Mr. Staunton : 

Mr. Staunton. Is not the real truth that the channel is too narrow ? 

Capt. Brown. No; I do not think that is the real truth. 

Mr. Staunton. It is the straight and narrow way? 

Capt. Brown. Not altogether. 

Mr. Staunton. Do you know of any other channel as narrow as this 
for such a length ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. Where? 

Capt. Brown. West of this channel on the Sault Biver, twice that 
long. 

Mr. Staunton. And no wider ? 

Capt. Brown. No. 

Mr. Staunton. Are there any cross currents there ? 

Capt. Brown. No, sir; it is practically in ITay Lake. 

Mr. Staunton. Are there not some cross currents just above the 
Canadian Canal at the Sault where you turn and go over there ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir; on the Canadian side. 

Mr. Staunton. Where you enter above? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Staunton. Are the cross currents in the Livingstone Channel 
any greater than they are there ? 

Capt. Brown. Much greater, you can check your vessel down 
going into the Canadian Sault at the upper end to a very slow rate, 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 87 

barely sheerage, and she will come down that channel and won't 
drift but very little. 

Mr. Staunton. What do you think the speed of the cross current 
is here ? 

Capt. Brown. I have no way of telling, I do not know. 

Mr. Staunton. Do you think it is greater than the speed of the 
current at the upper end of the Canadian Sault ? 

Capt. Brown. I know it is by the action of my vessel. 

Mr. Staunton. In reply to the commission you said that the 
danger zone extends for about 2,000 feet over the length of the 
Livingstone Channel; do you mean to say there are cross currents 
for 2,000 feet? 

Capt. Brown. About that. 

Mr. Staunton. Where do you think they commence ? 

Capt. Brown. They commence a very little above the north end of 
Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Staunton. How far from the end of the cofferdam ? 

Capt. Brown. I do not know the distance from the cofferdam to 
the head of Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Staunton. I am told it is 6,000 feet. 

Capt. Brown. Then from the end of the cofferdam to the head of 
Bois Blanc Island is 2,000 feet. 

Mr. Staunton. Assuming that is correct, how far is it ? 

Capt. Brown. In the neighborhood of 1,000 feet. 

Mr. Staunton. There are no special dangers for the first 1,000 feet; 
but it is in the next 2,000 feet that the danger is? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Questioned by Mr. White, K. C.: 

Mr. White. If that channel were widened as proposed to 450 feet 
and a dike put along the west side of it, would not that be some 
guidance in snowstorms and bad weather—you would know when you 
were approaching the west side of the channel, better than you do 
now? 

Capt. Brown. The current would tell you that. 

Mr. White. You say that conditions may arise where you can not 
see from one light to another and you spoke of a snowstorm in the 
Livingstone Channel; if there was a dike which was raised above the 
water on the west side of that channel, would it not be a guidance to 
you, a very special guidance to you in navigating your boat down the 
channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir, it would help. 

Mr. White. And the result of your three trips’ experience going 
down the channel is that by taking proper methods of navigating 
your boat you were able to get through with safety ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. White. You went through safer the last time than the other 
two times ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. White. You gentlemen who navigate ships on the Great 
Lakes have a very high reputation for your skill and I know it is 
deserved; you often meet with difficulties of a similar character? 

Capt. Brown. We meet with difficulties with regard to collisions 
and all that kind of thing. 


88 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. White. And you overcome them; that is what you are there 
for? 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. White. . So that assuming now that this commission should 
refuse permission to construct this dam to stop this current, you 
would have no hesitation next summer in navigating a boat down 
there ? 

Capt. Brown. I would not go into that channel under any circum¬ 
stances, unless the weather was favorable. 

Mr. White. That is all right; you would not go into the Limekiln 
Channel unless the weather was favorable. 

Capt. Brown. Yes, we go down there often when we can not see 
but a small distance. 

Air. White. That is owing to the width of the channel? 

Capt. Brown. Partially so. 

Mr. White. There are lights and everything there and it is an old 
channel, and you know it for all the years you have been navigating 
the river ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. White. And the Livingstone Channel is an unknown way 
and has not that a good deal to do with your objection to entering 
it or your timidity about entering it and risking your boat, is not 
that so ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir; I would like to make an explanation with 
regard to this right here. 

Mr. White. I am afraid the explanations you may give will result 
in prolonging the examination. 

Capt. Brown. No, it will give you a true idea of the matters I have 
talked about with regard to that channel; it will give my feeling 
about it and the feeling of others. 

Mr. White. Never mind the feeling of others; we only want your 
feeling about it. 

Capt. Brown. Mine is the same as the others. 

Mr. Casgrain. What is the velocity of the current at the Limekiln 
Crossing ? 

Capt. Brown. About 2\ miles to 2f miles per hour, I should say, 
without knowing positively. 

Mr. Casgrain. Don't you know positively ? 

Capt. Brown. No, sir; I do not from any actual tests, I know it is 
about that. 

Mr. Casgrain. What is the velocity of the current at that part of 
the Livingstone Channel where there is a dyke on each side? 

Capt. Brown. In the neighborhood of 3 miles. 

Mr. Casgrain. You say you do not know the velocity of the cross 
current at the lower part of it ? 

Capt. Brown. I do not know the exact velocity of the cross cur¬ 
rent, any further than my judgment with regard to the way the boat 
acted. 

Mr. Staunton. I am not a mariner, but I would have thought it 
would be your business to know. 

Capt. Brown. It is not. We have no way of getting the velocity 
of these currents on board our ships. 

Mr. Dowell. Do you experience any difficulty in steering these 
vessels in shallow water where the keel is near the bottom ? 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


89 


Capt. Brown. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powell. Do you experience difficulty of that kind in the 
Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Not so much in that channel or in any channel 
where there is so much water as there is there; there is 23 feet of water 
there. 

Mr. Powell. How much is generally under the keel ? 

Capt. Brown. About 4 feet. 

Mr. Powell. That would not interfere with the steering? 

Capt. Brown. No, not so much. 

Mr. Powell. Another question I would like to ask: What is the 
average rate of speed in running down that channel ? 

Capt. Brown. The average rate of speed for a bulk freighter would 
be about from 9 \ to 10 miles an hour. 

Mr. Magrath. Assuming there were no cross currents, would you 
as soon navigate the Livingstone Channel as the Amherstburg 
Channel? * 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir; I would. 

Mr. Magrath. Notwithstanding the fact that the Livingstone 
Channel is one-half the width of the Amherstburg Channel ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir; because there is more water and less bends 
in it; it is straight. 

Mr. Powell. I suppose the difficulty of hugging the eastern bank 
would be in nasty weather ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes; and you are more apt to take a sheer if you 
keep too close. 

Mr. Powell. And the current sending her down you could not 
come back then ? 

Capt. Brown. No. 

Mr. Powell. Looking at this plan, I see the first 1,000 feet you 
speak of, by this chart below the cofferdam, the channel runs to a 
reef and that would be the reason there is no strong cross current 
there. We know that the water deepens to about 20 feet and that is 
the reason there is a splitting of the stream and one-half going down 
the old channel and one-half going down here, and that commences 
the cross-current. What bothers my mind in respect to this is the 
narrowing of the channel. If you narrow that channel with an open¬ 
ing of 300 feet, the aperture in the dam would be about 1,000 feet 
from the new channel. With the water confined, would not the veloc¬ 
ity of that jet be very great, would it not strike the bow of your vessel 
as it was going down and make the situation much more dangerous 
than it is at present ? 

Capt. Brown. You would naturally suppose it would. 

Mr. Powell. That is what I would suppose from my experience. 

Capt. Brown. My idea of the dam there would be not to have an 
opening in it at all for absolute safety. 

Mr. Powell. Your idea is that if there is an opening or an aper¬ 
ture in it at all, it enhances rather than decreases the danger. 

Capt. Brown. You would naturally think so. 

Mr. Hough. You would sooner have the dam along one side or 
other of the channel than to have a dam with an opening in it where 
it is proposed to be located ? 

Capt. Brown. I certainly would, because that would be an absolute 
stop to that cross current. 

(The witness was not further examined.) 


90 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


TESTIMONY OF CAPT. F. A. WEST. 

Capt. F. A. West, master mariner of St. Clair, Mich., a witness on 
behalf of the United States, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland : 

Mr. Strickland. Are you master of a lake vessel ? 

Capt. West. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. What is her name ? 

Capt. West. The William G. Mather. 

Mr. Strickland. What is her tonnage and length ? 

Capt. West. Length, 533 feet; beam, 68 feet; molded depth, 32 
feet. 

Mr. Strickland. Between what points do you ply ? 

Capt. West. Between all the upper lake ports and Lake Erie. 

Mr. Strickland. What is the nature of your cargo ? 

Capt. West. Iron ore down and coal up. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you been through the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. West. I have. 

Mr. Strickland. How many times ? 

Capt. West. Once. 

Mr. Strickland. Just once $ 

Capt. West. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. At daytime or nighttime ? 

Capt. West. Nighttime. 

Mr. Strickland. What was your experience in going through that 
channel ? 

Capt. West. I came down that channel about 7 o’clock in the 
evenmg. If it had not been very early in the evening I would not 
have undertaken to run it at all. The night was clear and in talking 
over the current in that channel with the different masters I had tried 
to find out what data I could upon the current. I did not check my 
vessel at all. I told him go full speed and take that chance rather 
than take the chance of drifting. As we got through we passed 
along down the middle of the channel. I should judge perhaps one- 
third of the way to Bois Blanc Island I noticed her take to drifting 
and on account of these blinking lights there was nothing to steer 
the boat on and we had to steer by the compass-. I held her up half 
down until we passed down 2,500 feet, and she then had sagged past 
the middle of the channel. Then I lost the current and continued on 
without difficulty. 

Mr. Strickland. What was the date of that trip ? 

Capt. West. About the 12th of November. 

Air. Strickland. What were the weather conditions ? 

Capt. West. It was raining, but it was clear. 

Mr. Strickland. Was there any wind ? 

Capt. West. Not to speak of. 

Mr. Strickland. Under more unfavorable weather conditions 
would the danger be greater from the currents ? 

Capt. West. Yes; I would not dare go that speed because I could 
not see. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you towed anything through this channel ? 

Capt. West. No, sir. 





THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


91 


Mr. Strickland. How about towing through there ? Would it be 
safe ? 

Capt. West. I talked with one of the masters that took a barge of 
4,000 tons and he said he dragged the black stick all the way down 
while he was holding to the red stick on the east side of the bank. 

Mr. Powell. Do I understand you correctly to say that the course 
he was steering and the course of the vessel was over half a point ? 

Capt. West. Yes. 

Mr. Powell. That is not much. 

Capt. West. On my speed of nine and a half you can figure how 
much it was. 

Mr. Powell. Your salvation was putting on all speed ? 

Capt. West. Yes. 

Mr. Powell. And you say the danger in nasty weather is the fear 
of striking the banks ? 

Capt. West. Yes, because you dare not go at that speed in bad 
weather. 

Mr. Powell. The greater the speed the less the effect of the cross 
currents on the vessel ? 

Capt. West. Certainly; you are getting through it quicker. 

Questioned by Mr. King: 

Mr. King. The only experience you have had in going down the 
channel is when you went down by compass ? 

Capt. West. Exactly, sir; I had nothing else to steer by. 

Mr. King. It was at night ? 

Capt. West. Yes. 

Mr. King. And in daytime, under similar weather conditions, the 
buoys would be visible ? 

Capt. West. Yes. 

Mr. King. At night if the channel were properly lighted the buoys 
would be visible also ? 

Capt. West. To a better extent than at present. 

Mr. King. There would be no flickering lights; if the lights were 
steady the} 7 would be better. 

Capt. West. They would make a steering mark, certainly. 

Mr. King. You would not use your compass? 

Capt. West. I might use it to a certain extent. I could not head 
onto the lights. 

Mr. King. If the lights had been visible all the time just as much 
as the buoys would be visible in the daytime, you could have steered 
by them ? 

Capt. West. That would have been a help; yes, sir. 

Mr. King. I want to be perfectly fair and I want to ask you if it 
is not the practice with you that if both sides of the channel are 
clearly marked out in a straight line that you rely on these aids to 
navigation ? 

Capt. West. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. As to this other vessel that went through whose tow is 
said to have dragged on the black stick, do you know her rate of 
speed ? 

Capt. West. She pulls in the Lakes 7 miles an hour. 

Mr. King. And in the channel ? 

Capt. West. He said he was pulling her full speed. 


92 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. King. Did you see her? 

Capt. West. No, I am speaking from the talk of the captain. 

Mr. King. Did the captain of this vessel tell you that himself ? 

Capt. West. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. That is the only one you heard of? 

Capt. West. I was talking with a captain last Friday night 
regarding taking a large Steel Trust barge down there and he had 
the same experience he said. 

Mr. King. The same experience that you had ? 

Capt. West. No, the same experience as the other tow had. 

Mr. King. Had he a tow ? 

Capt. West. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. And these are the only tows you have heard of ? 

Capt. West. That is all. 

Questioned by Mr. Hough: 

Mr. Hough. You do not know anything about the length of the tow 
line ? 

Capt. West. No. 

Mr. Hough. And the longer the line she had out the more she 
would sag ? 

Capt. West. Yes, to a certain extent. 

Mr. Hough. It is well known that in a current coming down the 
Limekiln Crossing a vessel will sag practically three-quarters of the 
way over in some winds; a towed barge. 

Capt. West. Unless the barge is light the wind does not affect 
the barge. 

Mr. Hough. Well, when a barge is light, do the currents affect 
it—it is nothing unusual to have a barge sag, and when you meet 
an occasion when she is liable to sag is it not customary to run with 
as short a line as possible? 

Capt. West. It depends on the barge; that is, the barges will not 
steer well with a short line, they have to give them a long line to 
steer with. 

Mr. Hough. Of course, they steer better with a long line ? 

Capt. West. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. They don't sag as much with a short line as with a 
long line ? 

Capt. West. The sag is there. There used to be a rule on the 
smaller barges that the steamer could pull them up, but with these 
large heavy barges you can not do it; you have to depend on the 
barge doing her own steering to keep up. 

Mr. King. Did you talk with the master of this barge that you 
spoke ab nit ? 

Capt. West. No, I talked with the master of the steamer. 

Mr. King. And you don't know whether the master of the barge 
was not doing wdiat he ordinarily does when he is being towed? 

Capt. West. I do not know. 

Mi. King. You do not know whether he was alive to the current 
as you would be if you were going down ? 

Capt. West. I do not know, but I should judge he would be. 

Mr. King. You don't know whether it was not a sailor's yarn? 

Capt. West. A man of our own line was not telling me a" sailor's 
yarn. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


93 


Mr. Powell. The tendency of the tow is to sheer ? 

Capt. West. If the tow can stay in the center of the channel she 
generally goes straight. 

Mr. Powell. You do not catch my question—the difficulty in 
a tow is the sheer, and they lengthen the line to overcome that and 
the tow must depend on that; the ship herself must be kept under 
steerage way ? 

Capt. West. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Powell. In respect of these l’ghts, of course, anyone who 
has been through the mill knows the difficulty; I suppose*you have 
fogs here as they have them on the salb water? 

Capt. West. Yes, very often the whole of the river bank is in fog 
and it does not extend to the land at all. 

Mr. Powell. I do not know how far you can see in a fog here, 
my experience has been on the ocean; in the case of a dense fog, 
how far can you see a light ? 

Capt. West. That would depend on the fog. In the case of a very 
dense fog, we very often can not see further back than midships on 
the steamer. 

Mr. Powell. Then you would not see a light 100 yards ahead ? 

Capt. West. No, sir. 

Mr. Powell. In the case of dense fogs what do you do; do you 
anchor, or do you try to pass? 

Capt. West. If a fog overtakes us before we enter the Ballards 
Reef, we stop. We have got to wind around in the river; after we 
enter the Ballards Reef; we have to take full chances and do the best 
we can. 

Mr. Powell. You have to run the gauntlet then? 

Capt. West. We have. 

Mr. White. You don’t have to do that if you have a stern anchor? 

Capt. West. I never had one. 

Mr. White. A stern anchor is sometimes used. 

Capt. West. They have tried them. If you undertake to back 
your steamer, to use a stern anchor, you will have it slewed around 
the channel and she will beat herself anyway. 

Mr. White. But a stern anchor is sometimes used ? 

Capt. W t est. Yes; if you get one to hold. There is no anchorage 
in that channel; it is a rock bottom. 

(The witness was not further examined.) 

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. S. C. ALLAN. 

Capt. S. C. Allan, of Cleveland, Ohio, a witness produced on 
behalf of the United States, being duly sworn deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland : 

Mr. Strickland. Are you master of a lake vessel ? 

Capt. Allan. I am master of a modern freight stearper. 

Mr. Strickland. How long have you been master ? 

Capt. Allan. Seventeen years. 

Mr. Strickland. What is the name of your vessel ? 

Capt. Allan. For the last four years, the Henry II. Rogers. 

Mr. Strickland. What are her dimensions ? 

Capt. Allan. Six hundred feet long, 58 feet beam, 32 feet molded 
depth. 


94 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Strickland. You have been up the Amherstburg Channel 
and down the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Allan. I have been ub the Amherstburg Channel, but never 
down the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you any knowledge of any currents in 
connection with the Livingstone Channel? 

Capt. Allan. As regards the current you have been speaking 
of here, at the lower end, I have had a great many complaints come 
to me about the cross currents down at the lower end of the cut. 

Mr. Strickland. What is your official position in the Lake Car¬ 
riers Association? 

Capt. Allan. I am chairman of the committee known as the 
committee on aids to navigation. 

Mr. Strickland. Can you tell us any of these complaints ? 

Capt. Allan. When we meet, we take up the question of lighr 
and channels and everything like that, and when we met in December 
last the question of the lighting of the Livingstone Channel and 
cross currents came up, and the committee found considerable fault 
with the cross current at the lower end of the cut. 

Mr. Tawney. Was that fault based upon actual experience? 

Capt. Allan. That was by actual experience of some of the 
masters and hearsay from others. 

Mr. Strickland. What was the nature of these complaints; what 
were they about ? 

Capt. Allan. I will take it from the standpoint of the lights; 
the complaint was that the flickering light was not a proper light to 
light the channel, and that a fixed light would be better. Then of 
course there was the complaint down below with regard to the cur¬ 
rent and that we should have something to do away with that cross 
current. 

Mr. Powell. I suppose they wanted fixed lights throughout the 
channel ? 

Capt. Allan. Yes, they thought that would be much better 
than any flickering light. The flickering lights were all of the same 
character, and of course fixed lights would be all of the same character, 
but they would be much better; red lights on one side and white 
lights on the other. 

Mr. Streeter. How many complaints were made, and what were 
they ? 

Capt. Allan. The committee is composed of 12 masters, repre¬ 
senting different kinds of steamers. 

Mr. Streeter. How many complaints were made to the com¬ 
mittee in December with reference to the cross currents? 

Capt. Allan. They were only made at the meeting by the men 
on the committee. Nobody else but the members of the com¬ 
mittee meet there. 

Mr. Streeter. What were the complaints with reference to the 
current ? 

Capt. Allan. That the current was heavy there and set across 
and made it very dangerous to navigation. Most everything that 
has been said here has been said with regard to clear weather, but 
if fogs set in on you after entering the Livingstone Channel, you 
would have to go slow and you could not tell where the current was, 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL 


95 


the weather being thick, and you would have to go slow and you 
would undoubtedly ground your steamer. 

Mr. Streeter. Do you regard these complaints as worthy of 
consideration or as frivolous ? 

Capt. Allan. Worthy of consideration. 

Questioned by Mr. King: 

Mr. King. Your committee sometimes make recommendations as 
to the result of complaints such as that ? 

Capt. Allan. Yes. 

Mr. King. And you suggest the aid to navigation that you desire ? 

Capt. Allan. We do. 

Mr. King. Did you make any suggestion in this case? 

Capt. Allan. The only suggestion we did make was the building of 
j dike from the south corner of the east dike over to Bois Blanc 
Inland. 

Mr. King. Did you contemplate a 300-foot opening in the middle 
of that? 

Capt. Allan. Yes. 

Mr. King. Have you considered the effect of the current through 
that opening ? 

Capt. Allan. That is an engineering problem. 

Mr. King. It is to some extent a navigation problem; I suppose 
the narrower the opening and the higher the pressure behind the 
greater the force ? 

Capt. Allan. I do not know; I should think if you put that there 
and have a 300-foot opening, whatever current would go there would 
be thrown straight down. 

Mr. King. You think it would flow straight down? 

Capt. Allan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that its angle of direc¬ 
tion would be pretty well on to the Livingstone Channel ? Can you tell 
me what angle the proposed dam will make with the Livingstone 
Channel ? 

Capt. Allan. I can not say. 

Mr. King. It won’t be at right angles ? 

Capt. Allan. No. 

Mr. King. It would be a fairly acute angle ? 

Capt. Allan. It would be probably 25° or something like that. 

Mr. King. Is it not a fact that a current through the center of that 
dam would impinge fairly directly upon the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Allan. I can not see it that way. 

Mr. King. As to the building of a dike on the west side of the 
Livingstone submerged cut, that would be of material assistance, 
would it not ? 

Capt. Allan. I would not be in favor of that from the fact that it 
does not stop that cross current. Your drift would be just the same 
when you are crossing, only when you come to the current you drift 
down on to that place to the west side. 

Mr. King. Is it your opinion that with a dike and exposed bank 
along the west side of this submerged cut there would still be a cross 
current ? 

Capt. Allan. You would still get the cross current, only the cur¬ 
rent would go up against that dike. 

(The witness was not further examined.) 


96 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


TESTIMONY OF CAPT. F. A. BAILEY. 

Capt. F. A. Bailey, of Vermillion, Ohio, a witness produced on 
behalf of the United States, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland : 

Mr. Strickland. You are master of a lake vessel? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. What is her name ? 

Capt. Bailey. The William E. Corey. 

Mr. Strickland. What are her dimensions ? 

Capt. Bailey. Five hundred and seventy feet long, 56 feet wide, 
and 31 feet depth. 

Mr. Strickland. Between what points does she ply? 

Capt. Bailey. Head of Lake Superior, Chicago, and Lake Erie 
ports. 

Mr. Strickland. What freight does she carry? 

Capt. Bailey. Iron ore and coal. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you had any experience of the Livingstone 
Channel ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you been through the channel ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. How many times ? 

Capt. Bailey. Twice. 

Mr. Strickland. Night or day ? 

Capt. Bailey. Both times in daytime. 

Mr. Strickland. Describe your first trip through and then your 
second trip. 

Capt. Bailey. I was here on the 19th October and I was the first 
loaded boat to go through the Livingstone Channel. We proceeded 
down and when we got through this cut why we took a shoot to the 
westward. I did not know about the current like these other fellows, 
nobody told me about it. I ran over two of the black stakes before I 
got her up. I did not dare starboard my wheel. I thought I could 
straighten her in the channel by going full speed. I was going half 
speed at the time. The next time I got down it was 5 o’clock at night 
and we had daylight; I would not go down at night. The first time 
down I wrote our manager and told him I would not take a boat down 
there at night and would not want to do it unless he said go ahead and 
do it. 

Mr. Strickland. The second trip down did you notice the current ? 

Capt. Bailey. Oh, yes; there was the same current, only of course 
I knew a little more about it. 

Mr. Strickland. What is your opinion about towing through that 
channel? 

Capt. Bailey. There was a tow followed us down, but she was well 
astern and I do not know as to that. I think it would be quite a 
proposition to get a tow down through there. 

Mr. Strickland. Would you consider the channel much safer if the 
current were taken out of it ? 

Capt. Bailey. Oh, yes; decidedly. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


97 


Mr. Tawney. In your judgment, based upon your experience, 
would it be dangerous to navigate that channel without some rem¬ 
edying of the current ? 

Capt. Bailey. I think it is. 

Questioned by Mr. King; 

Mr. King. The complaint made to your owner was that you would 
not like to take a boat down at night on account of the drift? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes. 

Mr. King. You do not say that with reference to taking a boat 
down in the daytime? 

Capt. Bailey. I do not. 

Mr. King. And the difference at night is that you are depending 
on the lights rather than on the stakes ? 

Capt. Bailey. Well, yes; of course we will have to depend on the 
lights at iiight, but it is the only way we can tell the boat is drifting. 

Questioned by Mr. White : 

Mr. White. Did you have any difficulty in getting down the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel on your second trip ? 

Capt. Bailey. No, sir. 

Mr. White. It was broad daylight and you were able to see the 
buoys ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes. 

Mr. White. And given the same conditions at night with thelights 
visible, you could have taken the boat down ? • 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; it would be all right, but that is not the idea. 
The idea is this: When we go down there the worst thing we have to 
contend against is fog; fog is the worst thing we are up against. 
When a fellow goes down there in a fog he has got to depend on his 
compass, and there is no man who can steer down there in a cross cur¬ 
rent with his compass; he can not see anything; that is the difficulty 
you are up against. 

Mr. White. You would not enter a channel if there was a fog? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; I have entered a channel when a fog was on, 
and I have been caught in a fog when in a channel. 

Mr. White. You seafaring gentlemen have a pretty good idea of 
what the weather is going to be ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; but I have been caught a good many times. 

Mr. White. When you are caught you are wrecked; is that the 
idea? • 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; I have been wrecked. 

Mr. White. Navigation can not be rendered absolutely free from 
danger ? 

Capt. Bailey. No. 

Mr. White. If the channel were widened, would it not be a factor 
of safety ? 

Capt. Bailey. It would; in maneuvering your boat you would have 
that much more to drift in, but you still would have your cross current. 

Mr. White. Knowing that there is a cross current there and know¬ 
ing that channel, and knowing the point where the cross current struck 
the channel, would you not hold your boat up and prepare for it ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; not absolutely, but that is in clear weather. 

86342—13-7 


98 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. White. Would you not do it in any kind of weather? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; but in clear weather you would know what to 
do and in foggy weather you would not. 

Mr. White. You have a compass; one of you gentlemen said he 
steered down with a compass ? 

Capt. Bailey. He held up half a point, but I would not need that to 
keep ner up half a point. 

Mr. White. Would you not acquire a knowledge of all the details 
in that channel by going through it several times ? 

Capt. Bailey. No, sir; you would not. A wind to the westward 
means a heavy cross current there. 

Mr. White. Then I suppose it would be necessary, in order to run 
the channel with perfect safety, that there should be a wind shield put 
up somewhere ? 

Capt. Bailey. Oh, no. 

Mr. White. You are trying for a water shield in the dike, and I 
thought you might also want a wind shield; would the wind have the 
same effect on the swing of your boat from one side to the other ? 

Capt. Bailey. Not a loaded boat. 

Mr. White. I suppose if you wrecked a light boat there it would 
be nearly as serious as far as impeding navigation is concerned as if 
you grounded a loaded boat ? 

Capt. Bailey. No. 

Mr. White. The wind does affect a light boat whatever way she is 
coming? • 

Capt. Bailey. It does. 

Mr. White. And you want to eliminate this danger of the water 
when you are not caring a rap about the wind; you could get her 
through no matter how the wind is blowing ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; but we are generally going down this channel 
loaded. 

Mr. Hough. You do not navigate the Limekiln Crossing in a fog? 

Capt. Bailey. Not if we can help it. 

Mr. Hough. Just the same as in the Livingstone Channel? 

Capt. Bailey. Just the same thing. 

Mr. Hough. A dike along the side would be quite a material assist¬ 
ance in weather or fogs when you can not see ? 

Capt. Bailey. Yes; it would. 

Mr. Hough. It would answer the same purpose that this dike 
would? 

Capt. Bailey. That I do not know; that is for the engineers. 

Mr. Strickland. For the United States we close here. 


EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF CANADA, 


TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. STEWART. 

William J. Stewart, of the city of Ottawa, Ontario, chief of the 
hydrographic surveys for the Dominion of Canada, a witness, being 
produced on behalf of Canada, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. MacInnes : 

Mr. MacInnes. You are chief of the hydrographic survey of the 
Dominion of Canada ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. How long have you held that position ? 

Mr. Stewart. Since 1893. 

Mr. MacInnes. How long have you been engaged in hydrographic 
work ? 

Mr. Stewart. Since 1883. 

Mr. MacInnes. It has been part of your duty to make a study of 
the great waterways systems ? 

Mr. Stewart. Most of the time on the Great Lakes; yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. You are also a member of the International Water¬ 
ways Commission ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. When were you appointed to that position? 

Mr. Stewart. In 1907 or 1908. 

Mr. MacInnes. In that position you also had occasion to study 
these questions as to the waterways ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. At the last meeting of this commission, at Wash¬ 
ington, I understand you were asked by this honorable court to make 
a. report on the questions which are now before them ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you made the necessary investigations ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you have prepared your report? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. Would you give the commission the benefit of that 
report either by oral statement or by reading the material part of it ? 

Mr. Stewart. After studying the problem in connection with this 
Livingstone Channel, I thought it necessary to get a good deal of 
data m connection with the levels in the river. On the Canadian 
side we have not done much of that work until the last few years, 
so that I was compelled to appeal to Col. Patrick for a good many 
of the records as to the levels of the river. Of course there are a 
great many published tables for the earlier years from 1860. For 
the stream measurements we placed a party in the field in August 
last, and they were out in the various channels a couple of months. 

99 



100 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


I may say, as Col. Patrick has already stated, that the results of 
these measurements agreed very well indeed with the results that 
Col. Patrick obtained during the season. In working out the results 
and arriving at a conclusion as to what had happened since the work 
of the Livingstone Channel started in 1908, when the cofferdam was 
put in place, I find that the gauge readings show that the water 
above the cofferdam rose quite a bit; but of course that increase in 
level was carried back through the St. Clair and in a moderate degree 
through Lake Huron; the smaller amount to Lake Huron, because it 
was not there long enough. After the opening of the cofferdam—I 
thiuk it was completed in July—the records for September show that 
the water fell in the Livingstone Channel about thirteen-hundredths 
of a foot below the record of the mean for the 48 years from 1860 to 
1907—that is, taking the records previous to any work being done 
on the channel. The next question came up in connection with the 
two questions that were submitted to the commission. The first 
question started out with the words: “Under all the circumstances 
connected with the navigation of the Livingstone Channel / 1 and I 
took that part of it to mean that I might make an investigation 
throughout the whole system that would be influenced or where 
anything could be done that would affect compensation works at 
the Livingstone Channel. That would mean, Lake Superior being 
shut off and Lake Ontario being shut off; that would mean taking 
the whole system from the Niagara River to the head of Lake Huron 
and the head of Lake Michigan. 

Naturally, knowing that there was a heavy diversion at Chicago, 
I looked into the effect that was causing at the Livingstone Channel, 
Chicago, as reported in the report of the Chief of Engineers of the United 
States Army, was three or four years ago drawing over 7,000 cubic 
feet, and as Mr. Livingstone stated this morning, a good many of us 
feel that they are taking 9,000 feet or 10,000 feet at times, perhaps 
not all the time, but at times. Plowever, every drop that is taken 
has an effect on the level. The permission of the Secretary of War 
allows them at Chicago to take 4,167 feet per second, but as they 
are taking 7,000 feet I just figured on the 3,000 feet surplus they are 
taking, and I find that at the head of the Livingstone Channel that 
3,000 feet would make a difference of between 13 and 1.4 inches. 
That is to say, it practically equals the amount of the lowering that 
has been occasioned by the cut through the cofferdam. That is 
below the mean of the 48 years. So that, if Chicago is compelled 
to restore that surplus of 3,000 feet, it would compensate for what 
has gone out. That is to say, that the level for the 48 years would 
be restored and that would form one compensating work. If the 
Livingstone Channel be opened to 450 feet, as is proposed, the loss 
of level would be very nearly 2 inches, as Col. Patrick stated 
yesterday; I agree with him in his figures very closely. If the 
channel were opened to 450 feet, the increased loss above the present 
day loss would be three or four hundredths of a foot. 

Mr. Streeter. Do you mean additional % 

Mr. Stewart. Additional to what is the loss to-day. That is to 
say, it would be very nearly 2 inches, and Chicago, by being com¬ 
pelled to close down on the 3,000 feet per second, would restore 
between 1.3 and 1.4, which would leave a compensation to be pro¬ 
vided for of about 0.6 of an inch, or very little over half an inch. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


101 


There were other points to be considered in connection with the 
compensating works. They should be put in at the head of the chain 
or at the lower end of the chain, as the head of the chain would be 
Chicago. So far as levels are concerned, practically Lakes Erie, Huron, 
and Michigan are considered one chain of navigation. They are all 
connected without any canals, and what affected the one affected 
the whole. The restoring of this water at Chicago would benefit the 
whole lake system in that way; every lake would be improved. In 
that way I consider that would be the best compensation we could 
have. The other problem that is being studied by the corps of 
engineers and also by the International Waterways Commission is for 
a submerged weir in Niagara River. That is only a study at the 
present time, but it would restore to Lake Erie 6 inches and about 1J 
or 2 inches to Lake Huron. It would not do anything like the same 
amount of good that the return of water at Chicago would do. 

Coming back to Livingstone Channel and the proposed dike, it 
"would raise the water at the head of the channel about 0.23, but 
as the opening of the cofferdam has already lowered it by 0.13 
it would raise the water to 0.10. or one-tenth of a foot above 
the mean of the 48 years. It would raise the water at the head of 
Bois Blanc Island 0.28, and in the Limekiln Crossing 0.37. It 
would improve that reach considerably. Of course that would raise 
the water slightly in the Amherstburg Channel, but it would have 
to be something less than 0.28, as it would gradually diminish from 
the head of Bois Blanc Island to the foot. 

A word as to the currents. In the Amherstburg Channel, our 
velocity measurement last summer gave us a mean velocity at 
Amherstburg as 2.8 feet per second, and the estimated velocity with 
the dike in place would be 3.8 feet. 

Mr. Tawney. What would that be a mile ? 

Mr. Stewart. About 1.9 miles an hour. 

Mr. Tawney. What would be the difference in the velocity ? 

' Mr. Stewart. The increase in the velocity would be, with the dike 
in place, to the Amherstburg Channel, 0.4 foot per second. That 
would be pretty nearly 0.3 of a mile, or a little less than one-third 
of a mile. 

Mr. Tawney. Do these figures correspond with the figures made 
out by Col. Patrick ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think the difference we may give the velocity there 
is a little less than Col. Patrick made. 

Mr. Tawney. You make the increased velocity a little less? 

Mr. Stejvart. A little less. 

Mr. Tawney. But practically you agree ? 

Mr. Stewart. To ail intents and purposes we agree. 

Mr. Tawney. And you both reach this conclusion from data taken 
independently of each other ? 

Mr. Stewart. Quite independently, I did not see Col. Patrick until 
Friday last. 

Mr. Powell. Your calculations were made independently? 

Mr. Stewart. Quite independently. 

Mr. MacInnes. Would you be good enough to refer to the figures 
in the memorandum to the Dominion Government ? 

Mr. Stewart. There is a table in connection with this report that 
I will hand in. It shows the effect on the water level of Lake St. 


102 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Clair and at the head of the Livingstone Channel, due to the diver¬ 
sion of various kinds. Then, as to the effect of the construction of 
the dike, this shows that the opening of the Livingstone Channel 
lowered the water 1.56 below that datum or mean I have adopted 
in my work, and the construction of the dike will raise the water 2.76 
inches; that is, it would give a surplus of 1.2; that is. one-tenth of a 
foot. The Chicago diversion, 3,000 feet, means a lowering of 1.32 
inches. That figure is conservative, I think. One-half inch is the 
difference between the level that would come from the restoration of 
3,000 feet at Chicago and the loss that would be sustained by the 
opening of the 450-foot channel, so that the placing of the dike 
in the channel would be a compensating work for the diversion at 
Chicago so far as the Livingston Channel is concerned. 

(The commission took recess for luncheon.) 


AFTER RECESS. 

The commission met at 2 o’clock p. m., all the members being 
present. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will now proceed with the exam¬ 
ination of Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. MacInnes. Mr. Stewart, when the recess was taken you were 
dealing with the question of cross currents in your report. 

Mr. Stewart. I believe I was dealing witli the question of com¬ 
pensation. I had not quite finished on that point. I was referring 
to the conclusions derived regarding the proposition of putting in 
compensating works. I showed that the diversion at Chicago made 
practically the reduction that has been found in the levels at the 
head of Livingstone Channel when it was opened last September; 
that is to say, that the level there is reduced 0.56 inch below the 
mean of the previous 48 years and that the restoration of 3,000 feet 
from Chicago would restore about 0.35 inch, leaving a deficit of 0.2 
of an inch. If the channel were opened to 450 feet, the deficit 
would be 0.6 of an inch, a little over half an inch. I showed that in 
dealing with the chain of lakes, of which the Detroit River is a por¬ 
tion, it is possible to compensate for this work in three different ways, 
by Chicago, by Niagara, and by a dam in the place suggested. I 
consider that the stoppage at Chicago would be of greater benefit to 
the navigation of Livingstone Channel from a compensating point of 
view than either of the others. 

The Chairman. Instead of “stoppage,” do you not mean the 
reduction to the amount that the city of Chicago first obtained, the 
right to use the waters of Lake Michigan, the four thousand and some 
odd second feet ? 

Mr. Stewart. I am alluding to that, Mr. Chairman. I am alluding 
to the extra quantity they took. 

The Chairman. The stoppage then would be the excess over and 
above that amount ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. Of course if we could stop the whole of it we 
would be so much better off, but confining ourselves to the excess of 
3,000 feet, this would restore to Lake Huron quite a large amount of 
water. It would improve all the channels in the St. Clair and 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


103 


Detroit Rivers and it would improve conditions in Lake Erie. If the 
dam be placed in Niagara River it will restore about 6 inches to Lake 
Erie, about 4 inches to Lake St. Clair, and a little less than 2 inches in 
Lake Huron; nothing like what the other would. This dam at 
Livingstone Channel is practically a compensating work for the water 
diverted at Chicago now and it will only benefit the Detroit River, 
nothing beyond that. 

Mr. MacInnes. When you say “the water diverted at Chicago” I 
presume you mean the excess water to the extent of 3,000 feet? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. Not the whole excess, but an excess of 3,000 feet; 
although the excess may be more, you are dealing with just 3,000 feet. 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; if there is more excess, we would be so much 
the better off. 

Mr. Powell. That is only an assumption, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; but I do not think anyone will dispute that 
there is 3,000 feet at least. 

Mr. Casgrain. How are we to know that there are 3,000 feet 
excess at Chicago ? 

Mr. Stewart. We can obtain that information from a report pub¬ 
lished by the Chief of Engineers some two or three years ago. The 
Chief of Engineers states that the information that he has in his 
office in Chicago shows that they are using 7,000 feet. It is generally 
believed among the engineers themselves along the Lakes that the 
diversion is at times considerably greater than that, and it is not 
supposed ever to be less than 7,000 feet. 

As regards the question of cross currents, we have had some meas¬ 
urements taken by floats. These red lines [referring to a map placed 
before the members of the commission] represent the line taken by 
the floats. You will notice that until the floats arrive at about 1,600 
feet from the cofferdam the trend is practically parallel to the trend 
of the Livingstone Channel. After that it gradually gets a cross 
current that runs more across the channel. The greatest angle of it 
is about 40°. 

The Chairman. Is that deflection to the west in that current about 
at the point where the deep water begins on the west side of the 
Livingstone Channel ? The map here shows that there is a wide 
variation in the depth of the water. Commissioner Powell called 
attention this morning to the fact that in his judgment the current 
started just below the shoal and at the point where the deep water 
began. 

Mr. Stewart. I think that is just about where it is, Mr. Chairman. 
In the chart as supplied there is marked a big dumping ground to 
the southeast of the cofferdam, and until a boat arrives clear of that 
she does not experience very much cross current. She has it then 
at an angle ranging from 20° to 40°, and she has that for half a mile 
or a little less. At the upper end of it the cross current is three- 
quarters of a foot per second. That would be about half a mile an 
hour. Of course, that is not half a mile right straight across the 
channel. When you get farther down the velocity is found to be 
2.21. That would be a mile and a half an hour, and the component 
straight across the channel would be about a mile an hour. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that it would be equivalent to a 
mile an hour straight across the channel ? 


104 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir; rather it would have the same effect. We 
mean to say that if a vessel were on the east bank of the channel when 
she struck the current and she held her head in the trend of the chan¬ 
nel she would rift about three-quarters of the way across the channel. 
Of course, a vessel may not hold her head that way. I believe the 
regulations allow 10 miles an hour, but I figured on 8 miles an hour. 
When a vessel first strikes the current here her bow is first affected. 
It catches her bow first and carries it off, and unless a master is on 
the lookout he is apt to be turned over, but from my experience with 
the masters on the Great Lakes, and I have been serving up here 
quite a long time, I believe that if any men can navigate these waters 
they can. They are very capable men, very efficient, and take a 
great interest in their work. I can not think that that amount of 
current is a serious menace to the navigation of this part of the river. 

In the St. Lawrence River, below Montreal, the Canadian Govern¬ 
ment has a ship channel there about 160 miles long, and they have 
very strong currents, far stronger currents than any here. Some of 
them are cross currents and some are with the vessels going down. 
When you get half-way down the currents are sometimes with the 
vessels and sometimes against them, but it does not very often happen 
that we have accidents in the St. Lawrence River. 

Mr. Powell. Are not the steamers going down sometimes beached 
or grounded on the banks of the channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. Very seldom. I do not know when we have had 
the channel blocked. We have not had it blocked for some years now. 

The Chairman. What is the width of the channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. About 400 feet. 

Mr. Casgrain. It is crooked ? 

Mr. Stewart. It is winding all the way down. It is wider at the 
turns than it is in the channel. It is perhaps a hundred feet wider 
at the bends than in the straight portion. That channel down there 
is navigated night and day. Some of the pilots do not like to run at 
night, but others do. 

The Chairman. How does the tonnage compare with the tonnage 
in the Detroit River ? 

Mr. Stewart. It is not as great. 

The Chairman. How about the number of vessels ? 

Mr. Stewart. They are not as many. Of course, here all the 
vessels are going in one way; there is no meeting in this part of the 
river. 

Mr. King. Should you not qualify your answer somewhat in that 
regard, Mr. Stewart ? Should you not consider the relative propor¬ 
tions of certain of the boats? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think any of those boats have the carrying 
capacity of the boats on the Great Lakes. 

Mr. King. I wanted the commission to understand your answer 
thoroughly. The beam of some of the boats is greater down there. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; some of the boats are of greater beam and they 
draw more water. They draw 25 feet, but that is a question of the 
depth of the channel. 

Mr. MacInnes. What is your view as to the effect which a widen¬ 
ing of this channel from 300 feet to 450 feet would have in respect to 
this cross current? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


105 


Mr. Stewart. It would give the vessels a good deal more room in 
which to maneuver. The cross current would still be there, but it 
would make it less dangerous than it is to-day. I think that in a 
short time the corps of engineers will be widening that channel as 
they have widened a great many others. 

Mr. MacInnes. If it were widened to 600 feet, which we under¬ 
stand would have been done if it had not been for this question of 
compensation, what then would be your view as to this cross current ? 

Mr. Stewart. The current would still be there, but the boats 
would have more room in which to recover themselves. 

Mr. MacInnes. Then what is the danger of the current ? 

Mr. Stewart. The danger of accident would be lessened. 

Mr. MacInnes. If the channel were widened from 300 feet to 450 
feet even, what would your view be as to the necessity of this work 
so far as the cross-current feature is concerned. 

Mr. Stewart. If the channel were widened there would be far less 
necessity for it. 

Mr. MacInnes. Even at its present width, what is your view as to 
the necessity or desirability ? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think there is altogether a necessity. I do 
not think it is going to stop the navigation in the Livingstone Channel. 
It would be probably a very nice improvement to have, but it is not 
a necessity. 

Mr. MacInnes. That is, even at its present width ? 

Mr. Stewart. Even at its present width. Many vessels have gone 
down there already without accident. If it were a very dangerous 
place those vessels would not have gone there without meeting with 
some trouble, and the captains have gone through there in the very 
worst months of the year. November is a stormy month and the 
days are short. In the summer months the storms are not as great 
and the days are longer. We have only four or five hours of night 
in May, June, and July, and the chances of accident are greatly 
lessened. 

Mr. MacInnes. And when the captains become more experienced 
and have greater knowledge of this particular channel, what then ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think they will go through just the same as they 
go through all the rest of them. At one time there was a great deal 
of objection to navigating the approaches to the Canadian Canal. 
No vessel captain now hesitates to go through the Canadian Canal at 
the Soo. 

Mr. MacInnes. You say some tiling in your report as to other 
works which are under consideration and which affect the levels of 
the Great Lakes system, including this particular locality. Will you 
tell the commission what those are and what bearing they have on 
this question ? 

Mr. Stewart. There are questions of placing submerged weirs in 
the St. Clair River at various points to back up the water from point 
to point up there and restore the levels of Lake Huron. Of course, 
none of these weirs was to do anything below. My opinion is that 
none of these problems should be solved by itself. If we deal with 
this problem here in the Livingstone Channel we might deal with 
another one, and so on, and so on, and one would partly do the work 
of the other. 


106 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. MacInnes. Do you consider these other matters that you have 
referred to to be surrounding circumstances to a consideration of 
this matter ? 

Mr. Stewart. Some of them are; the two main ones are the 
Chicago matter and the Niagara matter. 

Mr. MacInnes. Those you consider to be necessary to a proper 
consideration of this matter ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think they properly come into a consideration of 
this matter. 

Mr. MacInnes. Do you consider them to be surrounding circum¬ 
stances ? 

Mr. Stewart. Certainly I do. I neglected to state, in connection 
with the Niagara matter, that if Lake Erie gets 6 inches and Lake 
St. Clair gets 4 inches that would be to take 2 inches off the fall 
between the two lakes. That will reduce the current slightly. 

Mr. MacInnes. So if that were done that would affect not merely 
the question of compensation, but also this alleged danger of cross 
currents ? 

Mr. Stewart. It would improve the condition of currents. 

Mr. MacInnes. It would cut off a certain amount of the slope ? 

Mr. Stewart. It would cut off part of the slope. 

Mr. MacInnes. And that would make less current ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; the less slope the less current. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stewart, aside from the objection to the con¬ 
struction of this dike which you have mentioned with respect to the 
withdrawal of water in the Chicago Drainage Canal, what other 
objections can you see? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not see the necessity for it. 

The Chairman. That is your own decision. Outside of the dis¬ 
charge at Chicago, which you have said you thought should be con¬ 
sidered in the general plan of compensation, your own objection is 
that it is not necessary. 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think it is necessary. 

Mr. Streeter. Mr. Stewart, there is one matter that I would like 
to have cleared up. You testified, as I understand it, that Chicago 
is diverting at least 3,000 second-feet more than it is permitted by 
the Secretary of War to do. 

Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Streeter. And you also practically agree, as I understand it, 
with Col. Patrick, about the cross currents down here going through 
the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Stewart. The cross currents are there. 

Mr. Streeter. Now, suppose the 3,000 second-feet being diverted 
at Chicago should be restored, what effect, if any, would that have 
on the existing cross currents now pouring out of Livingstone 
Channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. Practically no tiling. 

Mr. Staunton. Mr. Stewart, how T fast is the current crossing Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel after it enters the waters of the channel itself? 

Mr. Stewart. The strongest current crossing the channel is at a 
mile an hour; tha* is directly across. 

Mr. Staunton. Then it would take a small object how long to 
cross the canal on that current, three and a half minutes ? 

Mr. Stewart. About three and a half minutes. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


107 


Mr. Staunton. How long would it take a ship to pass through that, 
current going at the rate of 7 or 8 miles an hour ? 

Mr. Stewart. At 8 miles an hour it would take between three and 
a half and four minutes. 

Mr. Staunton. So that a ship in order to float the whole distance 
would have to lie still in the current four minutes, would it not, to 
drift 300 feet? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes, but I want to draw your attention to the fact 
that that current of a mile and a half is not there all the time; that 
is the greatest current. 

Mr. Staunton. That is the maximum velocity in the channel? 

Mr. Stewart. That is the maximum velocity in the channel. 

Mr. King. Over what area does that maximum velocity extend ? 

Mr. Stewart. About 1,000 or 1,200 feet. 

Mr. Staunton. What is the beam of the widest vessel that goes 
down there; do you know ? 

Mr. Stewart. Sixty-four feet, I believe. 

Mr. Staunton. Do you know how closely a vessel could hug the 
eastern side of that channel safely ? 

Mr. Stewart. She would want to keep as far off as she could. 

Mr. Staunton. But how close could she go ? 

Mr. Stewart. About 25 feet. 

Mr. Staunton. If she kept a straight course, it would take her a 
couple of minutes to drift clown to the other side? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. And in some parts of the channel the current is 
runuing at the rate of a quarter of a mile an hour? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; it is going at that rate. 

Mr. Staunton. In many parts it does not get faster than a quarter 
of a mile an hour ? 

Mr. Stewart. After she strikes the current, it is fully that anyway. 

Mr. Staunton. At that rate it would take her about 10 minutes 
to drift over? 

Mr. Stewart. There is very little at a quarter of a mile an hour. 

Mr. Staunton. But it would take two or three minutes, if she were 
standing still, to get over on to that side. She has a couple of hun¬ 
dred feet sea room, has she not? 

Mr. Stewart. She has. 

Mr. Staunton. She will not drift as fast as the current would unim¬ 
peded by the vessel ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; unless she is making allowance for it. 

Mr. Staunton. She makes allowance for it? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; she will make allowance for it. 

Mr. Staunton. What do you mean by ‘‘making allowance for it” ? 

Mr. Stewart. Altering the head of a vessel. From what I know 
of the captains of the Great Lakes there are not many of them going 
to be caught napping like that. 

Mr. Staunton. You said they were afraid to cross over to the 
Canadian Soo Canal on account of the current at the top. 

Mr. Stewart. That was some years ago. 

Mr. Staunton. Is it not a fact that within seven or eight years 
captains have decidedly objected to going over there? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think so within seven or eight years; it is 
farther back than that. 


108 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Stailnton. I think I know Canadian captains that within the 
last seven or eight years used to take the American Soo because of 
the dangers over there. 

Mr. Stewart. I think it is further back than that. I have not 
been up there very much within the last seven or eight years. 

Mr. Staunton. They think nothing of it now ? 

Mr. Stewart. They" think nothing of it now. 

Mr. Staunton. A captain has a great vessel and a valuable cargo, 
and perhaps his own position is dependent upon his navigating safely 
from port to port, and he does not want to subject himself to any 
possi.Ie risk in the voyage. That is about the size of it, is it not ? 

Mr. Stewart. That is about the size of it. 

Mr. King. Your floats which were used for the purpose of making 
up this chart of currents were on the surface of the water ? 

Mr. Stewart. They were poles 10 feet long. 

Mr. King. Ten feet under water ? 

Mr. Stewart. Ten feet under water. 

Mr. King. And they went right across Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. Right across Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. King. The bottom end of the poles did not go down into the 
excavated cut ? 

Mr. Stewart. They did not go down to the bottom of the cut. 

Mr. King. Your measurements do not cover the currents that 
might happen to be in the submerged cut below the banks on each 
side ? 

Mr. Stewart. No. 

Mr. King. And a considerable part of any ship going down is 
below the banks on each side ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think so. 

Mr. King. So it is quite possible that the effect on the ship would 
not be at all identical with that on a float which does not enter into 
stiller water below ? 

Mr. Stewart. It is quite possible. I think a boat going down 
there light is influenced by the currents more than a boat going down 
loaded. 

Mr. King. A great part of her side would be in the stiller water 
between the protecting banks ? 

Mr. Stewart. Exactly. 

Mr. King. So that the effect on the vessel would probably be less 
than that upon those floats as shown there ? 

Mr. Stewart. Probably. 

Mr. King. It is proposed, Mr. Stewart, to have a 300-foot opening 
in the center of the dam. The current through that opening will be 
swifter, will it not, than through the broader present opening from 
the island to the cofferdam ? 

Mr. Stewart. Much greater. 

Mr. King. Have you anything to say as to the effect of that current 
upon vessels ? 

Mr. Stewart. I say that it is greater, because the construction of 
the dam will raise the water considerably in the reach between the 
head of the Livingstone Channel and Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. King. Thelevel of the water on the upper side of the dam will 
be considerably greater ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 109 

Mr. Stewart. Considerably greater, and the water on the lower 
side of the dam will be, if anything, lower. 

Mr. King. Navigators are somewhat concerned, are they not, 
about the effect of such a current which will exceed in velocity the 
present current? 

Mr. Stewart. While it will be very much greater, I do not think 
that by the time it reaches the Livingstone Channel it will be danger¬ 
ous or cause any trouble. 

Mr. King. It is bound to travel just as far as the present waters 
that go there. 

Mr. Stewart. I think that shortly after it gets through the cut it 
will spread out, and that very little of it will reach, Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel. 

Mr. King. I suppose there is no means of telling absolutely what 
will occur. Does engineering science go so far as to enable one to say 
what will absolutely occur ? 

Mr. Stewart. If a trough 300 feet wide were made, I think then 
that the worst that could occur would be a current between a mile 
and a mile and a half in strength by the time it reached Livingstone 
Channel. That is the worst condition I can think of, but you must 
remember that it is not a trough. It opens out the whole length 
after it passes through the dike. 

Mr. King. That may be true, but it has no cross current to inter¬ 
fere with it, and it might continue for quite a long distance under its 
original speed. I mean that any current down the river would be in 
the line or Livingstone Channel and in the channel. 

Mr. Stewart. The current coming down the river; yes. 

Mr. King. And that would protect this 300-foot stream from any 
tendency to be borne down the river until it met Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Stewart. No; the water has a chance to spread, and unless 
it spreads the current must diminish. 

Mr. King. That is the reason you think we would not feel it; 
because } r ou think it would spread ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; I think it would spread out. As regards the 
navigation of Livingstone Channel and this current, I would like to 
say that most of the accidents I can think of at the present time in 
the dredged channels through the connecting waters have been due 
more to causes beyond the control of the master. Some of them have 
been due to defective steering gears. Of course in such an event, 
the master can not do anything before his boat is piled up. The 
same thing might occur here. I think if the matter is left to the 
captains themselves we will not have any trouble with cross currents 
here. Of course, when a steering chain breaks or anything of that 
kind happens", the boat is in danger. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stewart, you said that aside from your 
theory that compensation ought to bp taken up in a general proposi¬ 
tion, that your only other objection to the construction of the dam 
was that in your judgment it was not necessary. Suppose that after 
thoroughly investigating the question this commission should con¬ 
clude to regulate the construction of a dike in the interest of safer 
navigation, would there be any objection, except the one that you 
have mentioned in respect to compensating works, to the construc¬ 
tion of this dike ? 


110 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Stewart. That would depend upon the scope of the investi¬ 
gation. 

The Chairman. But suppose the commission should conclude that 
in the interests of navigation it would be advisable to cut off these 
cross currents and recommend the construction of a dike; in that 
case would there, in your judgment, be any material objection to 
the construction of a dike, other than the general reason which you 
have mentioned that compensation should be taken up and consid¬ 
ered in a general proposition ? 

Mr. Stewart. That is a very difficult question to answer, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. You have been gathering data with regard to the 
increase in the quantity of water that will flow down past Amherst¬ 
burg as the result of the construction of the dam, have you not ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How does your data compare with that which 
Col. Patrick gave us yesterday as to the increased quantity of water? 

Mr. Stewart. The agreement is remarkably close. 

The Chairman. How does the result gathered from your data as 
to the increased velocity compare with the result shown by Col. 
Patrick yesterday ? 

Mr. Stewart. Do you mean the computed increased velocity? 

The Chairman. Yes; computed from your data. How does that 
compare with the computed mcreased velocity given by Col. Patrick ? 

Mr. Stewart. My increased velocity is a little less than his, but 
the difference is immaterial. 

The Chairman. In your judgment, would there be any material 
effect on the property on the Amherstburg side due to increased 
flowage of ice in consequence of the construction of the dam ? 

Mr. Stewart. I would rather say nothing on the ice problem, 
♦ Mr. Chairman. I have not seen the Amherstburg Channel at all, 
and I do not know anything about ice conditions. 

The Chairman. So far as increased velocity in consequence of the 
construction of the dike and the increased quantity of water is con¬ 
cerned, your calculations and the calculations of Col. Patrick are 
substantially the same ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; I do not think it would injure Amherstburg 
in the slightest along that line that you spoke of. 

Mr. Casgraxn. In the way of increased velocity of the currents, 
do you mean? 

Mr. Stewart. Anything that would happen in that way I do not 
think would injure Amherstburg in the slightest. 

Col. Patrick. Mr. Stewart, assuming that there were no other 
diversions, or disregarding other diversions than those being made 
from the lakes at different points, what do you think would be the 
lowering immediately above the Livingstone Channel due simply 
and solely to the opening of that channel to the 450 feet ? I simply 
ask that question in order to clear up what may be in a little doubt. 
I figured it yesterday as between 1J to 2 inches. I believed that 
that would be an additional lowering. 

Mr. Stewart. That is, you think 2 inches below the mean of the 
48 years would be the lowering, using that as a datum ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; but I said that with the 300-foot channel the 
lowering is practically nothing. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Ill 


Mr. Stewart. Very little. 

Col. Patrick. So I said th t the opening to the additional width 
of 150 feet would probably give an inch and a half or 2 inches. I just 
* wanted to know whether or not you agree with that figure. 

Mr. Stewart. I think the figure would be 1.9. 

Col. Patrick. That is close enough. 

Mr. Stewart. And I stated that Chicago would return about 1.35, 
leaving us about 0.6. 

Mr. King. 1.9 at what point? 

Col. Patrick. Just above the Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. King. Not in the Limekiln Crossing? 

Col. Patrick. No; that is a different thing. 

Mr. Stewart. The Limekiln Crossing would increase it much more. 
That increase from the construction of a dike would have very little 
effect on the Livingstone Channel except to increase the current. 

Col. Patrick. You have already answered the question about the 
effect of the water going through the 300-foot opening. You stated 
that when that water reached the Livingstone Channel the current 
due to it would be imperceptible. 

Mr. Stewart. That is my opinion. 

Mr. Magrath. I must admit that I attach a great deal of impor¬ 
tance to any recommendations made by the United States Army 
engineers. I say that from a knowledge of their record and from 
their methods of investigation, but since this problem was dealt with 
by the board there has been injected into it a factor which I believe 
may not have been then as fully considered as it is being brought into 
the limelight now. You have doubtless seen this memorandum 
which was presented by the counsel for the Dominion Government 
yesterday morning, in which they refer to an unauthorized and uncon¬ 
trolled diversion at Chicago. Now, I am not going to ask you to say 
anything as to that, but assuming that at some point above Detroit 
there should happen to be an uncontrolled diversion of water which 
is supposed to pass this point—and I am now dealing with princi¬ 
ples—do you think it would be wise, from an engineering standpoint 
to be spending the taxes of the people in creating improvements in a 
channel out of which there has been taken an undetermined amount 
of water ? I am speaking now about the general principle. 

Mr. Stewart. Do you mean a diversion by the public or by private 
corporations ? 

Mr. Magrath. It is immaterial to me how the diversion is made, so 
long as the diversion is taken from a stream that under natural con¬ 
ditions would be flowing past such a given point. 

Mr. Stewart. Of course, I think a different answer would be 
required in a case where a diversion is made by the public than where 
the diversion is made by the two Governments. 

Mr. Magrath. Can you deal intelligently with engineering prob¬ 
lems affecting an improvement in a stream when you are in ignorance 
as to the extent to which that stream is being depleted ? 

Mr. Stewart. No engineer designing a work can make sure that 
his work is going to be successful 5 he does not know the datum to 
which he has constructed the work is to remain constant. For 
example, all the dredging and all the work that has been done in the 
Livingstone channel has been done to a certain datum, and the engi¬ 
neers expect to get a certain datum of water. Now, if somebody goes 


112 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


to work and through some construction interferes with the level of the 
water, the success of the work is impaired. It is not efficient. 

Mr. Magrath. Would you not be working at sixes and sevens 
when you are in ignorance as to what may happen above you ? 

Mr. Stewart. Certainly. A few years ago when the Welland 
Canal was under construction it was constructed to a certain depth. 
The water fell, and a few years after the Chicago diversion was 
figured out the Canadian Government set to work and deepened the 
whole of the upper Welland Canal, because they could not get their 
14 feet through there that they had figured on. The same thing is 
occurring wherever dredging is being carried on. 

Mr. Magrath. In making improvements on international waters 
is there any arrangement between the two Governments whereby 
such proposed improvements are considered jointly? Of course, I 
would just as leave ask Col. Patrick these things as you, Mr. Stewart. 

Mr. Stewart. Not that I know of. 

Mr. MAgrath. Then if not, would you consider that greater effi¬ 
ciency could be obtained by some joint consideration by the engineer¬ 
ing services of both Governments? 

Mr. Stewart. For the sake of the taxpayer, I should say yes. 

Mr. Turner. In referring to the Chicago people diverting 3,000 
feet of water, you spoke of stopping that as compensation. 

Mr. Stewart. I think you can properly apply that term to compen¬ 
sation. 

Mr. Turner. Do you think it is safe to base an engineering con¬ 
clusion on the proposition that if the people are stealing water the 
Government of the United States is going to permit that to go on ? 

Mr. Stewart. If the Government of the United States does not 
permit it to go on, then we will have the condition we want. 

Mr. Turner. Do you think it is fair to say that the Government of 
the United States is going to permit that to go on ? 

Mr. Stewart. If the Government of the United States does not 
permit it to go on, then we will have the condition we want; that is 
exactly the point I want to make. 

Mr. Turner. I understood you to say that you thought that we 
ought not to consider this matter without considering all these ques¬ 
tions in conjunction. Here is an unauthorized diversion; stealing 
water- there, according to the information you have. It seems to me 
that an international tribunal considering what ought to be done here 
in the Detroit River ought not to assume that the Government of the 
United! States is going to permit that to go. on indefinitely. 

Mr. Stewart. If it is not going on indefinitely, the compensating 
works kre not required. 

Mr. Turner. The compensating works would be required if you 
want to keep the level up to what it would be if this water were 
stored, would it not ? 

Mr. Stewart. The restoration of the water would bring the water 
up to the mean of the 48 years. 

Mr. Turner. Then this Livingstone Channel depletes that more 
than the natural channel would deplete it; so you have to have 
compensating works, do you not? 

Mr. Stewart. It has been found that the lowering has been 
occasioned by the opening of the cofferdam, and to this is added 
the lowering due to the Chicago diversion. In the datum to which 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


113 


both Col. Patrick and myself have referred, the mean of the 48 years, 
there is very little of the Chicago diversion considered, because they 
did not commence to take water in Chicago until 1900, and, of course, 
the full effect of that was not felt for quite some time afterwards. 

Mr. Turner. Suppose the level of the lake were 2 inches higher 
than it is now. A certain amount of water would come down the 
Detroit River if not interfered with at all. Now, you cut a channel 
like the Livingstone Channel; even with the water 2 inches higher, 
it would draw off the same proportion, would it not, of additional 
water? If you wanted to prevent it, you would have to have com¬ 
pensating works, would you not? 

Mr. Stewart. We are asked to restore the level. I do not take 
it that we are asked to supply more. There are three ways that 
the level can be restored. One way is by stopping the diversion at 
Chicago. That will bring the water back to within a very small 
fraction of what it was. That is what we call in the Lakes a mean 
water, the average stage of the water for 48 hours. It does not seem 
to me that we are called upon to do any more than that. 

Mr. Turner. As I understand it, compensating works are intended 
to compensate for the extra amount of water that is drawn off in 
that large channel. Now, if we should dig the Livingstone Channel 
it would deplete it to the extent that it added an area to the space 
that the water already flows through, would it not ? If you wanted 
to prevent that effect, you would have to have compensating works, 
would you not? 

Mr. Stewart. I might explain that in another way. The con¬ 
struction of the cofferdam had the effect of raising the water. It 
raised the water there some 5 or 6 inches. If there had been no 
diversion at Chicago that water at the head of the Livingstone Channel 
would have been an inch and a third higher than it was. Now, with 
that condition, if the Livingstone Channel had been opened then, 
with no diversion at Chicago, it would have come down to the mean 
of the 48 years, and there would have been no question of compen¬ 
sation. It would only have brought the flow down to the mean of the 
48 years. 

Mr. Turner. If you wanted to prevent the flow through such a 
channel as the Livingstone Channel, you would have to build coffer¬ 
dams to stop the flow in other directions, would you not ? 

Mr. Stewart. A great deal of the compensation has already been 
done. I think practically all the compensation was done by the 
cofferdam. 

Mr. Turner. As I understand it, this weir in Niagara River has 
been reported against because of its deleterious flow. 

Mr. Stewart. That was the project for regulating the level of Lake 
Erie. That has been reported against. 

Mr. Turner. How long has this submerged weir been there? 

Mr. Stewart. Two or three years. It has absolutely no influence 
on the waters below. Once Lake Erie obtains its level the flow goes 
on the same as it ever did. It is only the question of the quantity 
of water that can be stored there in high water. 

Mr. Turner. Do you know approximately what that will be ? 

Mr. Stewart. No; that is for the Government to determine. It 
will be reported upon. 

86342—13-8 


114 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Turner. Then it is merely speculation as to what effect that 
will have on this project here? 

Mr. Stewart. Any work that is being undertaken must be inves¬ 
tigated. When my investigations were made as to this matter, in 
casting about under th'e terms of the question, under all of the cir¬ 
cumstances, the matter led me to look at both ends of things. 

Mr. Turner. The terms of this submission refer to matters on 
either side of the international boundary. Do you call Chicago 
upon either side ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think it is most decidedly on one side. 

Mr. Turner. Do you think we ought to delay the examination of 
this question in order to wait until this speculative project in the 
Niagara River has been determined and reported upon? 

Mr. Stewart. I think it is a question of making inquiry all along 
the line as to whether this is the best place. My opinion is that as a 
conmensating work it will not do the most good. 

Mr. Turner. Do you think that this question submits to us the 
matter of determining anywhere in the Great Lakes where compen¬ 
sating works can be established ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think it is possible to put that construction on 
that paragraph. I think it would be a misfortune to tackle the Lakes 
and do a little bit of work here and a little bit of work at another 
place. One work might destroy the effect of the other. 

The Chairman. Is this project at the outlet of Lake Erie that you 
have mentioned one that the International Waterways Commission 
is now considering, and has had the life of the commission extended 
for a year for the purpose of completing its report ? 

Mr. Stewart. Not altogether, Mr. Chairman. The life of the 
International Waterways Commission was extended a few years ago 
by a treaty instructing them to re-mark the boundary line through 
the Great Lakes. That is part of the work they are doing to-day. 

The Chairman. But you remember the present Congress at the 
last session appropriated money for the American section of the 
commission up until December I of last year, and when this session 
convened in December last the President of the United States 
sent a special message to Congress advising the continuance of the 
appropriation for the American section of the commission for 18 
months, in order to enable the commission to make its report on this 
project, which is, I believe, the construction of a dam at the outlet 
of Lake Erie. Was that the project that you were discussing a 
moment ago with Mr. Turner, or was it some other project? 

Mr. Stewart. That was the project. 

Mr. Streeter. Mr. Stewart, I understood you to say that the exist¬ 
ence of those cross currents that have been described and that affect 
shipping through the channel would not be in any degree affected by 
the restoration of the 3,000 second-feet at Chicago. Am I right in 
that understanding ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; you are right. 

Mr. Streeter. If 1 grasp this matter correctly, you are thinking 
of the diversion at Chicago only with reference to the compensatory 
features of this reference. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Stewart. That is correct. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


115 


Mr. MacInnes. This question of cross currents which Mr. Streeter 
has just referred to would be affected, and as I understood, materially 
lessened, if this work at Chicago were constructed ? 

Mr. Stewart. Certainly. 

Mr. MacInnes. That work would affect not merely compensation, 
but the question of currents ? 

Mr. Stewart. It would reduce the current. 

Mr. Staunton. I understood from you, Mr. Stewart, that this 
Livingstone Channel in itself had not lowered the water above to 
anv perceptible degree. 

Mr. Stewart. It has not lowered it below the mean of the previous 
48 years. 

Mr. Staunton. I do not care about the mean, but has it lowered 
the water? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. How much has it lowered it? 

Mr. Stewart. Previous to the project being started, before there 
was any question of the Livingstone Channel, the river had a certain 
slope, a certain level. The cofferdam was put in there to enable the 
contractor to cut the channel. That raised the water there about 6 
inches. 

Mr. Staunton. It was 6 inches higher after the cofferdam was 
put in ? 

Mr. Stewart. Six inches higher. 

Mr. Staunton. It choked the water back to that extent so that it 
was 6 inches higher ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. Now, you took out the cofferdam. Did that 6 
inches disappear then ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. Did any more disappear ? I understood from you 
and Col. Patrick that nothing more than the 6 inches disappeared. 

Mr. Stewart. That needs a little qualification. The water came 
down more than 6 inches. 

Mr. Staunton. The rise occasioned by the introduction of the 
cofferdam disappeared ? That is right, is it not ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. Did any more than that disappear? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. How much? 

Mr. Stewart. An inch and a half. 

Mr. Staunton. You say that the water was an inch and a half 
lower all the rest of the season after the cofferdam was taken out ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Staunton. So that it is an inch and a half shallower up there 
now? 

Mr. Stewart. That was our gauge reading in September. 

Mr. Staunton. So it just dropped an inch and a half there. 
Now, does that affect navigation? Would you spend any money to 
get back that inch and a half at that place ? Suppose you had to pay 
For it now; suppose you were interested in a vessel that was going 
down there; as a practical commercial proposition would you advise 
your company to put in that dike there for the purpose of getting 
back that inch and a half of water ? 


116 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Stewart. I would rather let somebody else do it. 

Mr. Staunton. Is it commercially worth while to spend that money 
to restore that inch and a half of water above this Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel? 

Mr. Stewart. I would have to go to work and figure out the 
amount of traffic going through there. I would not like to speak on 
that subject offhand. 

Mr. Staunton. You see no commercial value in putting in that 
dike, do you ? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think I would like to recommend it just 
now. I do not think it is necessary. 

Mr. Staunton. Then there is no commercial value to it. Consid¬ 
ering the currents, you do not think it is necessary, because you do 
not think the currents create a commercial danger? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think they create a commercial danger 
at all. 

Mr. Hough. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Stewart, that in 
your opinion the increased ice brought into the Amherstburg Channel 
by this dike would not injure Amherstburg a particle? 

Mr. Stewart. I said I would not express any opinion on the ice 
question, because I have never been there. 

Mr. Hough. I thought you said it would not injure Amherstburg 
at all. 

Mr. Stewart. I said that the increased velocity would do no harm 
to Amherstburg. 

Mr. Hough. You did not express any opinion as to the damage the 
increased ice might do ? 

Mr. Stewart. No. 

Mr. Powell. Have you given your opinion as to the increased 
flow of water that the dam would induce in the branch of the river 
that flows by Amherstburg ? 

Mr. Stewart. Oh, yes, Mr. Powell. 

Mr. Powell. How much additional do you think it would be in 
flowage ? 

Mr. Stewart. The present flow on September 11 of last year was 
66,000, and I estimate 79,000 to 80,000; an increase of about 13,000. 

Mr. Powell. What is the current opposite Amherstburg? 

Mr. Stewart. Last summer it was 2.8 feet per second. That is 
about 1.9 miles per hour. 

Mr. Powell. What was it up above, where they propose to erect 
the dam through that channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. It is somewhere about the same; possibly a little bit 
more. 

Mr. Powell. I can not understand that. Look at this map a mo¬ 
ment. Call that a watercourse above the island and below the coffer¬ 
dam. We will take a cross section of it. Call this a watercourse 
opposite Amherstburg and we will take a cross section of that. This 
cross section is more than twice that one. It seems to me, Mr. 
Stewart, that it is going to throw water through there to the extent 
of 100 to 150 per cent more than runs there at the present time. 

Mr. Stewart. I do not know how that is explained. We meas¬ 
ured the water down there last summer. 

Mr. Powell. I was just taking your data to-day. You say that the 
current is about the same through what we call the upper water- 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


117 


course, that is, between the crib or the cofferdam and the island, as 
it is in the watercourse between Amherstburg and the island. Now, 
if the watercourse is twice as wide above as it is here, and the average 
depth is as I have indicated, then you are throwing that much more 
on the Amherstburg people. I just happened to notice that in con¬ 
nection with your statement. 

Mr. Stewart. The velocity through that channel there, Mr. 
Powell, between Bois Blanc Island and the cofferdam, is not at right 
angles to the flow of the stream. 

Mr. Powell. That is very true, and I asked Mr. Casgrain to pass 
me that plan. I measured that with the actual current and got the 
cross section at right angles to the current, and still it works. That 
is why I made the allowance of from 100 to 150 per cent. 

Mr. Stewart. I might say that when we measured the stream 
there last year we got 66,000 feet per second through the Amherstburg 
channel, and through the other channel, between Bois Blanc Island 
and the cofferdam, the quantity is 42,000. 

Mr. Casgrain. Do your figures and Col. Patrick’s figures agree as 
as to what you are speaking about now ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir; practically. 

The Chairman. The data was collected independently of each 
other ? 

Mr. Stewart. Absolutely so. 

Mr. Powell. And these calculations were made last year from 
actual observation? 

Col. Patrick. As accurately as it could possibly be made, Mr. 
Powell. We worked out the same result. All the flow that goes 
down through that district does not go through Amherstburg. A 
great deal of it is carried in other channels. 

Mr. Stewart. If the dike were put in a great deal of the water that 
goes now between the cofferdam and Bois Blanc Island would flow 
out of the other channel. 

Mr. Powell. The Amherstburg people last August claimed that 
a very large amount of “field ice” or “cake ice,” which by the current 
now is swept between the lake water and that island would be forced 
down upon them by the current and injure their docks and their 
vessels. Would that be the effect ? If there were ice would that be 
the result ? 

Mr. Stewart. Now you are asking me to express an opinion on the 
ice problem with a new condition there entirely. 

Mr. Hough. Can you tell me how those records are taken ? Are 
they taken on the surface ? I mean the records regarding the vol¬ 
ume of water that passes down any particular channel. Are they 
taken in that way and calculated from the velocity. 

Mr. Stewart. No; water meters were used. Without plan meas¬ 
urements were taken at three different points, three different depths, 
two-tenths, six-tenths, and eight-tenths. 

Mr. Hough. Then you calculate the difference in the depth 
between the two channels; or is your calculation based on just the 
surface flow ? As Commissioner Powell has pointed out, the Amherst¬ 
burg channel is a great deal deeper. 

Mr. Stewart. It is a great deal narrower. 

Mr. Hough. It is 600 feet wide and a thousand feet wide in one 
place. 


118 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Stewart. At the point we took the measurement it is 3,000 
feet wide. 

Mr. Hough. In making your calculations as to the volume did you 
take into consideration the fact of that greater depth of water ? 

Mr. Stewart. Certainly; we got the exact area of the depth of 
water at that point. 

Mr. Hough. I suppose the fact remains then that 40 per cent of 
the water in that channel now goes west of Bois Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Magrath. At the present time ? 

Mr. Stewart. There is 42,000 feet in one channel and 66,000 in 
the other channel. I might say that the area of the cross-section 
at Amherstburg is 24,000 at the level we were using last year, and 
the area of the passage between Bois Blanc Island and the cofferdam 
is 47,000. One gives a flow of 66,000 feet, the smaller one, and the 
larger one gives a flow of 42,000 feet. 

Mr. Powell. Then, instead of the general flow being the same, 
you would have to revise your statement, and say that the general 
flow is only about one-half or less ? 

Mr. Stewart. There is not very much difference. 

Mr. Powell. You are mistaken there; it is less than half. 

Mr. Stewart. That is only the mean velocity for the component 
at right angles to the line of the section. If you take the regular 
current going through there on an angle you would get it considerably 
greater. 

Mr. Powell. When you spoke about the current setting at a mile 
an hour westwardly across the river, what you meant by that was that 
the present current, according to its course, is equivalent to a current 
settmg a mile an hour at right angles to the channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; I mean the current going across the channel 
at a mile an hour; that is the maximum. 

Col. Patrick. Mr. Stewart, the attorney asked you a while ago the 
question as to the amounts of water that were flowing down now 
opposite Amherstburg and between the cofferdam and Bois Blanc 
Island. You answered that through the Amherstburg Channel at 
present there were flowing about 60,000 feet and between Bois 
Blanc Island and the cofferdam about 50,000 feet. 

Mr. Stewart. That is correct. 

Col. Patrick. Assuming that the dike is put in place, will all of 
that 40,000 feet that now flows above Bois Blanc Island pass Amherst¬ 
burg in addition to that now passing there ? 

Mr. Stewart. No. 

Col. Patrick. Can you tell me about what will be the additional 
flow by Amherstburg due to the dike, either in cubic feet or percent¬ 
age? 

Mr. Stewart. 13,000 or 14,000 feet. 

Col. Patrick. 13,000 or 14,000 only will be the increase? 

Mr. Stewart. That is all. 

Col. Patrick. That will leave about 30,000 cubic feet to go else¬ 
where. Where will that go ? 

Mr. Stewart. It will be distributed amongst the other channels. 

Mr. Powell. Will that go through the gap ? 

Mr. Stewart. A little of it will go through the gap. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 119 

(The following paper was submitted to the commission by Mr. 
Stewart:) 

To the International Joint Commission. 

Gentlemen: I have the honor to submit, as requested by you, the following re¬ 
port upon the questions concerning the proposed construction of a dike to connect 
the Stony Island cofferdam with Bois Blanc Island. 

This report is to be understood as derived from the results of the investigations 
worked out in the annexed memo. 

In the portion of the river under consideration there were originally four channels. 

One between Grosse Isle and Michigan. 

One between Stony Island and Grosse Isle. 

One between Bois Blanc Island and Stony Island. 

One between Amherstburg apd Bois Blanc Island. 

In the channel between Bois Blanc and Stony Islands has been constructed a coffer¬ 
dam and the Livingstone Channel, and it is proposed to connect this cofferdam with 
Bois Blanc Island. 

Before answering the questions let us look at the reasons for the present condition 
of affairs. 

The construction of the cofferdam treated at its head a fictitious water level nearly 
6 inches higher than the mean of the previous 47 years (see Table 3 of the memo.), 
called normal condition of the river. 

The opening of the cofferdam in July, 1912, not only removed this high water, 
but reduced the level of September last to 1§ inches below the above mean or normal 
condition of the river (see Table 5), or only slightly lower than is occasioned by the 
3,000 c. f. s. unauthorized diversion at Chicago. 

An additional reason is to be found in the low-water condition of all the lakes and 
channels caused by the diversion from Lake Michigan, which aggrevate the reduced 
level in the stretch of river under consideration. 

The purpose of the dike is two-fold. First, to restore the level reduced by the 
opening of the Livingstone Channel, or the unauthorized diversion at Chicago; and 
secondly, to block a cross current through which the Livingstone Channel has been 
dredged. 

Careful measurements of discharges through the various channels and computa¬ 
tions based upon them show that the dike would restore the above mentioned 1$ 
inches and raise the level to inches above the normal. 

It will raise the water 3.4 inches at the head of Bois Blanc Island, gradually lessen¬ 
ing as the foot of the island is reached. 

The mean velocities through this channel will be increased from 2.8 feet per second 
(measured in September, 1912), to 3.2 feet per second computed. 

The increase in level at the head of the Livingstone Channel would increase the 
velocity through it slightly, diminish that through the Limekiln Crossing Channel, 
and, as shown above, increase that through the Amherstburg Channel, but the changes 
are so slight as to be negligible. 

There is no doubt such a dike will cut off the cross current through which the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel has been constructed, but this danger is not very evident because 
between the, 19th of October and the end of navigation 1,227 vessels (57 in one day) 
passed through without accident, so that its necessity is not very pressing. 

In view of the narrowness of the channel between the cofferdam and Lake Erie, 
much of the danger from the cross current could be removed by widening from 300 
to 450 feet without at present increasing the opening through the cofferdam. 

The proposed dike might be a nice improvement to have, yet under all the circum¬ 
stances surrounding the navigation of the Livingstone Channel and as more efficient 
means may be found for restoring levels, it is hardly advisable or necessary. 

The navigation of the Great Lakes System is free and open for the vessels of both 
countries. Therefore both are interested, although the extent of such interest varies 
in different localities, and all are affected by a common danger. 

The levels at Ballard Reef, as well as in all parts of the Great Lakes below Lake 
Superior have been injuriously affected by the diversions at Chicago of, first, 4,167 
c. f. s., permitted by the Secretary of War, and second, of about 3,000 c. f. s. unau¬ 
thorized. 

As may be seen by Table 15, this latter diversion causes a lowering of levels at the 
head of Livingstone Channel of 1.32 inches, so that the level of last September could 
have been restored to normal by action at Chicago. 

There is no guarantee as to the amount of the diversion through the sanitary canal 
and it is, therefore, impossible for any body of engineers to construct any work to 
give the maximum benefit—for instance, a work is designed and constructed upon a 


120 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


definite plan or to a definite datum. As soon as it is completed some community 
comes along and diverts a large quantity of the water, reducing the levels and destroy¬ 
ing its efficiency. .... 

Therefore, whilst these diversions continue the undersigned believes that it is inad¬ 
visable to deal with the problem of holding up lake levels by small works here and 
there. 

It is under consideration to place various submerged weirs in the St. Clair River 
to repair damage caused by this private corporation; works, the cost of which the 
general public should not be called upon to bear. 

In addition to this, two bodies, one international, are studying the possibility and 
effect of a submerged weir in the Niagara River. It is believed that stich a work 
can be so designed and constructed as to raise the mean level of Lake Erie 6 inches. 
It would, therefore, more than restore to Limekiln Crossing and Ballard Reef the water 
that it has lost by the cutting of the Livingstone Channel, and it would to some extent 
reduce the cross current. 

It, therefore, appears that what compensation is required can be effected in two 
other ways, both of which will render to the citizens of the two countries far greater 
benefits than this small work that concerns the Detroit River only: First, to cease 
diverting water at Chicago will confer a heavy boon to all the lake interests between 
Lake Superior and the Atlantic Ocean. Secondly, the construction of a submerged 
weir in the Niagara River will give 6 inches more water to every harbor in Lake 
Erie and the Welland Canal and at least 4 inches to the Detroit River. 

MEMORANDUM ON THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 

The following questions relating to the improvement for the purpose of navigation 
of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River, have been referred to the 
International Joint Commission for investigation and report: 

(1) Under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding the navigation and 
other uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on either side 
of the international boundary, is the erection of any dike or other compensatory work 
deemed necessary or desirable for the improvement or safety of navigation at or in 
the vicinity of Bois Blanc Island in connection with rock excavation and dredging in 
Livingstone Channel authorized by the river and harbor act of June 20, 1910 (36 
Stats., 655), and described in House Document 676, Sixty-first Congress, second 
session, sundry civil act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 729), sundry civil act of March 
4, 1911 (36 Stats., 1405), of the United States, and now being carried out by the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States. 

(2) If in answer to Question (1) any dike or other compensatory works are found 
to be necessary or desirable, will the work or works proposed by the United States and 
provided for in the river and harbor act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 655), and located 
so far as to connect the north end of Bois Blanc Island to the southeast end of the 
existing cofferdam on the east side of Livingstone Channel, opposite and below Stony 
Island, be sufficient for the purpose, and if not what additional or other dikes or com¬ 
pensatory works should be constructed and where should they be located in order to 
serve most advantageously the interests involved on both sides of the international 
boundary. 

To answer the two questions submitted to the International Joint Commission on 
the subject of the Livingstone Channel it was necessary to study the gauge readings 
at St. Clair Flats Canal, Mamajuda light, Ouellettes boat house, Limekiln Crossing, 
and Amherstburg, for the following periods: 

(1) Previous to the commencement of the improvements in connection with the 
construction of the Livingstone Channel. For this period, 1860-1907, the tables in 
the .report of the International Waterways Commission on the regulation of Lake 
Erie and Table IX in the report of the Chief of Engineers U. S. Army, Appendix EEE, 
1904. 

(2) Whilst the cofferdam was in place and closed 1909-1911. These records were 
obtained from the office of the U. S. Corps of Engineers at Detroit. 

(3) After the opening of the channel in June or July, 1912. These records were also 
obtained from the U. S. Corps of Engineers at Detroit. 

For the gauge records, self recording gauges were used at the main points, but staff 
gauges were employed at the various measurement sections. 

I. Table of elevation of Lake St. Clair at Flats, 1860-1907. 

II. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Windmill Point, 1860-1907. 

III. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Amherstburg, 1860-1907. 

IV. Table IX, p. 4083, Report of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, 1904. 

V. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Flats, 1908-1912. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


121 


VI. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Windmill Point, 1908-1912. 

VII. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Mamajuda, broken periods. 

VIII. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Ouellettes, 1909-1912. 

IX. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Limekiln Crossing, 1909-1912. 

X. Table of elevations of Lake St. Clair at Amherstburg, 1908-1912. 

(4) In addition to these valuable records, it was necessary to obtain measurements 
for discharges through the various channels in the vicinity of the cut. These were 
obtained in August and September by Mr. Douglas Ellis of the School of Mines, 
Kingston, Ontario, acting under instructions from the Canadian Hydrographic 
Survey. 

For‘the stream measurements two Haskell meters were used and carefully rated. 

(5) ^ A report by Assistant Engineer Charles Y. Dixon to Lieut. Col. Townsend and 
published in House Document No. 676, Sixty-first Congress, second session, states 
that between April 24, 1909, and July 23 gauges were maintained and simultaneous 
readings obtained at Mamajuda, Gibraltar, Grosse Isle, and Amherstburg, and the fol¬ 
lowing relationships established: 

Fall from Mamajuda to Gibraltar 1.35 feet. 

Fall from Grosse Isle to Amherstburg 0.22 feet. 

During the various periods mentioned above the level of Lake Erie varied con¬ 
siderably, as did also the slope from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie, so that it became 
necessary to reduce all means to a datum. For this purpose the mean level of Lake 
Erie at Amherstburg, 572.84, and the mean fall of St. Clair Flats Canal to Amherstburg, 
2.84 feet, for the period 1860-1907, were selected and all levels and slopes adjusted to 
them. ■*» 

The discharge measurements were reduced to the mean condition for September, 
1912, when it was thought the river would have settled into a steady condition after 
the opening of the Livingstone Channel. 

In studying the probable condition of the river with the proposed dike in place, 
the levels were solved for and afterwards adjusted to the datum adopted above Amherst¬ 
burg. 

The mean levels of the various gauges in Detroit River for the period 1860-1907 were: 

, Table I. 


Lake Erie. 572.60 

Amherstburg. 572. 84 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573. 00 

Limekiln Crossing. 573.24 

Ouellettes... 573.80 

Mamajuda. 574.27 

Salt Works. 574.51 

Windmill Point. 575.40 

St. Clair Flats. 575. 68 

The cofferdam was completed in 1908 and closed until June, 1912. 

The readings of the gauges for these years were: 


Table II. 



1909 

1910 

1911 

Mean. 

A mherstburg. 

572.73 

572.39 

571.86 

572.33 

Limekiln Crossing. 

573.15 

572.83 

572.33 

572.77 

Ouellettes. 

573.91 

573.55 

573.07 

573.51 

Mamajuda .. . 

574.28 

573.95 

573.46 

573.90 

Windmill Point.. 

574.96 

574.72 

574.06 

574.58 

St. Clair Flats. 

575.32 

575.10 

574.54 

574.99 



To make any comparison the following adjustments must be made: 

(1) The increase made necessary by raising the Amherstburg level from 572.33 to 
572.84, the standard adopted. 

(2) The increase to all levels above Amherstburg to adopt the standard slope of 
2.84 feet, St. Clair Flats to Amherstburg. 

(3) The backwaters to all levels above Ouellettes occasioned by the water being 
raised at that point by the construction of the cofferdam. 

The backwater rise in Lake St. Clair for a rise of 1 foot in Lake Erie during a natural 
mean flow of the Detroit River is 0.61 foot (see par. 121 of appendix to report Inter¬ 
national Waterways Commission on regulation of Lake Erie). 
























122 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


The backwater rise at Ouellettes for 1 foot in Lake Erie and 0.61 in St. Clair is 0.86 
foot, and the backwater in Lake St. Clair is 71 per cent of this. 

Therefore under normal conditions of lake level and river slope and discharge the 
means of 1909, 1910, 1911 become: 


Table III. 


Lnkp Frip . 

. 572.60 

Ambprsthiirp 1 . 

. 572.84 

Limekiln Crossing. 

Ouellettes. 

Mamajuda. 

Salt Works 

. 573.37 

. 574.25 

. 574.67 

. 574.90 

Windmill Point. 

. 575.72 

St. Clair Flats. 

. 576.00 


showing (compare Tables 1 and 3) that the construction of the cofferdam raised the 
water at the head of it (Ouellettes) above the mean of 1860-1907, 0.45 foot, at St. Clair 
Flats 0.32 foot, and at Limekiln Crossing 0.13 foot. 

The Livingstone Channel was opened about 300 feet in July, 1912, and the following 
condition recorded for September, 1912: 


Table IV. 


Lake Erie. 572.50 

Amherstburg. 572.74 

Limekiln Crossing. 573.18 

Ouellettes. . . 573.59 

Mamajuda. 574. 02 

Windmill Point. 575.18 

St. Clair Flats. 575. 55 


By adjustment to the standard level of Lake Erie and the standard slope of St. Clair 
Flats to Amherstburg this becomes— 


Table V. 


Lake Erie. 572.60 

Amherstburg. 572. 84 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573.00 

Limekiln Crossing. 573. 27 

Ouellettes. 573.67 

Mamajuda. 574.11 

Saltworks. 574.32 

Windmill Point. 575.21 

St. Clair Flats. 575.59 


showing (compare Tables 3 and 5) that in September after the channel was opened 
and Lake St. Clair mighty be expected to have settled down to the new conditions, as 
compared with the levels of the mean of years 1909, 1910, 1911, the water fell: 

0.11 at Limekiln Crossing. 

0.59 at Ouellettes. 

0.57 at Mamajuda. 

0.40 at St. Clair Flats. 

Compared (see Tables 1 and 5) with the mean of the period 1860-1907, the water fell: 
0.13 at Ouellettes. 

0.12 at St. Clair Flats. 

and was actually higher by 0.02 at Limekiln Crossing. • 

Using the fall St. Clair Flats to Amherstburg as a datum, the following table shows 
the changes to the various important gauges on the river during the various periods 
under consideration: 

Table VI. 


Fall. 

Mean, 

1860- 

1907. 

1909. 

1910. 

1911. 

Mean, 

1909- 

1911. 

Sep¬ 

tember, 

1912. 

With 

dam. 

St. Clair Flats to Amherstburg. 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

St. Clair Flats to Ouellettes.?. 

0.666 

0.544 

0.570 

0.548 

0.556 

0.700 

0.632 

St. Clair Flats to Limekiln Crossing. 

0.859 

0.838 

0.837 

0.825 

0.834 

0.843 

0.723 

*4 







































THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


123 


It ig to be noted that whilst the relation of the fall St. Clair Flats to Limekiln Crossing 
to that of St. Clair Flats to Amherstburg remained nearly constant, that of St. Clair 
Flats to Ouellettes was changed materially whilst the cofferdam was in place and 
returned almost to its old relation after the channel was opened. 

Discharges were measured in August and September, 1912, by the Canadian Hydro- 
graphic Survey in the following localities: 

1. Trenton section, near the bridge connecting Grosse Isle with the mainland. 

2. Stoney section, near the bridge connecting Grosse Isle with Stoney Island. 

3. Livingstone Channel, near the middle of the cofferdam. 

4. Across Limekiln Crossing at Gordon. 

5. Across Amherstburg Channel, just below the waterworks. 

6. Across channel between Bois Blanc and the cofferdam. 

Four measurements were made at each section from which the value of the coeffi¬ 
cient for that section was determined and then the discharge for the mean September 
condition of lake and river computed. 


In Trenton section “C” was found to be. 71. 2 

In Stoney section “C” was found to be. 81.1 

In Livingstone section “C” was found to be. 77. 2 

In Limekiln Crossing “C” was found to be. 81. 7 

In Amherstburg “C” was found to be. 76. 4 

In Bois Blanc cofferdam “C” was found to be. 30. 3 

For the condition of river as given in Table IV for September, 1912, the disc] 
were computed to be: 

Table VII. 

c. f. s. 

Trenton Channel. 45, 600 

Stoney Channel. 13, 200 

Livingstone Channel. 38, 200 

Limekiln Crossing. 108,000 


205,000 


Amherstburg. 66, 000 

Bois Blanc cofferdam. 42,000 


108,000 

It is proposed to close the Bois Blanc cofferdam channel except for an opening 300 
feet wide through which 16,000 cubic feet per second will pass. This leaves 26,000 
cubic feet per second to be taken care of by the other channels. 

The effect of this will be to increase the water level at the head of the Amherstburg 
Channel to give the additional cross section required to pass the extra water. 

A careful computation of the new condition shows that to meet the contingency the 
water levels and flows must be; 

Table VIII. 


Foot of Amherstburg Channel. 572. 69 

Amherstburg gauge. 572. 74 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573.10 

Limekiln Crossing. 573.43 

Ouellettes. 573. 80 


Table IX. 

Discharges through channels of the Detroit River, Amherstburg gauge 572.74, 


Ouellettes 573.80: 

c. f.s. 

Trenton Channel. 48,800 

Stoney Channel. 15,900 

Livingstone Channel. 45,000 

Limekiln Crossing. 95,300 


205,000 


Amherstburg Channel. 79, 300 

Gap in dike. 10,000 


95,300 

































124 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL, 


From the measured discharges in the Amherstburg Channel the value of “C” was 
computed as 83.6. 

Adjusting these levels in Table VIII to standard, they should read: 


Table X. 

Lake Erie. 

Amherstburg gauge. 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 

Limekiln Crossing. 

Ouellettes. 

Mamajuda. 

Salt Works. 

Windmill Point. 

St. Clair Flats. 


572. 60 

572. 84 

573. 28 
573. 61 

573. 90 

574. 38 

574. 62 

575. 47 
575. 75 


Showing that the construction of the dike as proposed with the present Livingstone 
Channel will raise the water above the level of September, 1912: 


At Lake St. Clair. 0.18 

At Ouellettes boathouse (head of channel). 0. 23 

At Limekiln Crossing. 0. 34 

At head of Amherstburg Channel. 0. 28 

It will raise it above the mean of the years 1860-1907: 

At Lake St. Clair.... 0. 07 

At Ouelletes. 0.10 

At Limekiln Crossing. 0.37 

At head of Amherstburg Channel. 0. 28 


VELOCITIES OBSERVED AND COMPUTED. 


The following mean velocities were measured in the various channels during Sep¬ 
tember, 1912, and alongside these are tabulated those expected if the dike be built: 

Table XI. 



Measured 

mean 

velocity. 

Computed 
mean 
velocity 
with dike 
built. 

Trenton. 

Ft. per sec. 
1.670 

Ft. per sec. 
1.790 

Stoney. 

1.826 

2.194 

Limekiln Crossing. 

2.617 

2.190 

Livingstone (in cut). 

3.151 

3.761 

Livingstone, through cofferdam. 

3.709 

Livingstone 450-foot channel. 

3.600 

3.600 

Amherstburg (opposite town)... 

2.815 

3.250 

At head Amherstburg Channel. 

2.600 

2.920 

At foot Amh^stburg Channel. 

2.540 

3.000 



The various regimens of the river may be seen in the following table: 

Table XII. 



Mean. 

Sep¬ 

tember, 

1912. 

Bois 

Blanc 

Dike. 

Tren¬ 

ton 

Dike. 

Diver¬ 

sion 

Gauge. 

« ' ' | 

1860- 

1907 

1909- 

1911 

Chica¬ 
go, 
4,167 
c. f. s. 

St. Clair Flats. 

575.68 

576.00 

575.59 

575.75 

575.76 

575.79 

Windmill Point... 

575.40 

575.72 

575.21 

575.47 

575.48 

575.41 

Salt Works. 

574.51 

574.90 

574.32 

574.60 

574.61 

574.50 

Mamajuda. 

574.27 

574.67 

574.11 

574.36 

574.37 

574.28 

Ouellettes. 

573.80 

574.25 

573.67 

573.89 

573.91 

573.83 

Limekiln Crossing. 

573.24 

573.37 

573.27 

573.52 

573.48 

573.44 

Head Amhertsburg Channel. 

573.00 

• 

573.00 

573.20 

573.20 

573.16 

Amherstburg. 

572.84 

572.84 

572.84 

572.84 

572.84 

573.01 


It is to be noticed that the readings at Ouellettes show the greatest changes. 























































THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


125 


CROSS CURRENTS. 

Observations taken in September, 1912, with floats and rods 10 feet long show that 
cross currents from the Limekiln Crossing Channel strike the Livingstone Channel 
cut at about 1,600 feet south of the cofferdam at an angle of 25° with the cut and a 
velocity of half a nlile an hour; that this current alters its direction to 40° 1,600 feet 
farther south and velocity to 1£ miles per hour, and as it approaches Bois Blanc 
Island the velocity increases slightly and alters direction to more nearly conform to 
the trend of the cut. 

The regulations governing the navigation of the Detroit River limit the speed here 
to 8 miles per hour over the bottom, and most vessels will be compelled to maintain 
this for steerage way. That is to say, a vessel will be exposed to this cross current 
during half a mile of her passage, or for four minutes at most. During this time if she 
were exposed to the full effect of the maximum current and did nothing to counteract 
the effect except keep the vessel heading directly in the channel, she would drift 
250 feet at most. 

It is to be noted, however, that when a vessel first strikes this current the bow is 
liable to be carried with the current, and if this tendency to swing be not quickly 
counteracted she will be on the other bank. 

With proper marking and the usual careful and intelligent handling that vessels 
on the Great Lakes receive, this cross currejit is no worse than many others, as in the 
St. Mary and St. Lawrence Rivers. 

With the dike in place, the velocity through the 300-foot gap will be about 3 miles 
per hour. At the edge of the channel the worst that could happen would be if the 
water from the gap reaches it in a trough 300 feet wide when the velocity would be 
1£ miles per hour. 

After passing through the gap, however, the water spreads out, and when it reaches 
the edge of the channel the velocity will be imperceptible. 

LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL OPENED TO FULL 450 FEET. 

The area of the cross section through the opening in the cofferdam is 10,300 square 
feet, with water surface at 573.25, but if opened to full 450 feet the area of the opening 
will be 12,200 square feet. 

The discharge under same slope will increase from 38,200 cubic feet per second 
to 44,000 cubic feet per second. 

Thus, if the cuts in the cofferdam were to be suddenly opened to 450 feet, the dis¬ 
charge in the section of the river would be increased 5,800 cubic feet per second and 
the water would fall at Ouellettes 0.03 foot—an inappreciable amount. 

DIKE IN TRENTON CHANNEL. 

Table VIII shows that the closing of the Bois Blanc Channel in September last 
would have raised the water at Ouellettes to 573.83, and Table IX gives the discharges 
at this level. 

The discharge through the Limekiln Crossing section at this same level and with 
no dike will be 115,000 cubic feet per second, or a total of 178,100 for the three chan¬ 
nels east of Grosse Isle. Therefore, 27,000 cubic feet per second will be left for the 
Trenton Channel, and the following would be the new levels: 

Table XIII. 


Amherstburg. 572. 84 

Head Amherstburg Channel. 573. 20 

Limekiln Crossing. 573. 48 

Ouellettes boathouse. 573.91 

Mamajuda Lighthouse. 574. 37 


If, therefore, a dam or dike between some of the islands at the foot of the Trenton 
Channel be constructed to shut off a flow of 22,700 cubic feet per second, the river 
will be in practically the same condition as if the proposed dike were to be built. 







126 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Table XIV. —Effect of the various works on water levels of Lake St. Clair. 


Condition of water levels. 


Cause. 

At high 
water. 

At mean 
water. 

At low 
water. 

Opening nf Livingstone Channel, lowers .. 

Inches. 

0.184 

Inches. 

0. 84 

Inches. 

0.84 

1,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

.53 

.55 

.62 

2,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

1.07 

1.09 

1.23 

3,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

1.60 

1.64 

1.85 

4,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

2.13 

2.18 

2.46 

5^000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

2.68 

2.73 

3.08 

6^000 c. i. s. diversion at Chicago. 

3.20 

3.28 

3.70 

7^000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

3.73 

3.82 

4.31 

* 8,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

4.26 

4.37 

4.93 

9,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

4.80 

4.91 

5.54 

10,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

5.33 

5.46 

6.16 

12,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

6.40 

6.56 

7.39 

14,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

7.47 

7.64 

8.62 

Construction of the dike will raiseTevel above low water occasioned by 
opening channel, lowers. 

1.08 

1.08 

1.08 

Closing of cofferdam in 1908 raised water above mean of 1860-1907, lowers. 

3.84 

3.84 

3.84 


Effect of various works on water levels at head of Livingstone Channel: 

Table XV. 



Condition of water levels. 

Cause. 

At high 
water. 

At mean 
water. 

At low 
water. 

Opening of Livingstone Channel lowers. 

Inches. 

1.56 

Inches. 

1.56 

Inches. 

1.56 

1,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

.40 

.44 

.52 

2,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

.40 

.88 

1.04 

3,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

1.20 

1.32 

1.58 

4,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

1.56 

1.76 

2.10 

4,167 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

1.72 

1.83 

2.20 

5,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

2.05 

2.20 

2.60 

6,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

2.46 

2.64 

3.16 

7,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

2.86 

3.08 

3.70 

8,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

3.27 

3.50 

4.20 

9,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

3.70 

3.96 

4.74 

10,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

4.10 

4.40 

5.20 

12,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

4.92 

5.28 

6.32 

14,000 c. f. s. diversion at Chicago. 

Construction of dike will raise level above low water occasioned by open¬ 
ing of Livingstone Channel. 

5.72 

6.16 

7.40 

2.76 

2.76 

2.76 

Closing of cofferdam in 1908 raised level above mean water of 1860-1907_ 

5.40 

5.40 

5.40 


Therefore if the Chicago diversion had been held to the amount of the permit the 
gauge readings (adjusted) for September, 1912, would be: 

Table XVI. 


Lake Erie. 572. 77 

Amherstburg. 573 . 01 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573.16 

Limekiln Crossing. 573 . 44 

Ouellettes. 573.83 

Mamajuda. 574 . 28 

Salt works. 574 . 50 

Windmill Point. 575 . 41 

St. Clair Flats. 575 . 79 


During the season of 1912 of 242 days, 25,238 vessels passed through Limekiln 
Crossing, and between the 19th of October and the close of the navigation season 1,227 
vessels passed through Livingstone Channel, making a grand total of 26,465 through 























































THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 127 

Detroit River, or an average of 1 vessel each 13£ minutes. The tonnage through 
Detroit River was 95,000,000, each vessel carrying an average load of 3,590 ton. 

The largest number of vessels passing in any one day through Limekiln Crossing 
was 153. On the 7th of November 57 vessels passed through Livingstone Channel. 

To show that Limekiln Crossing is not the controlling factor in the navigation of 
the Great Lakes system, it may be pointed out that the following depths at the Poe 
Lock and Limekiln Crossing pertained during the year 1912: 



Poe 

Lock. 

Limekiln 

Crossing. 


17.65 

20.6 

May. 

17.97 

21 


18.42 

21.1 

July. 

18.59 

21 


18.79 

21 

September. 

19.04 

21 

October.■.. 

18.88 

20.5 

November. 

18.81 

20.1 

December 1-16. 

18.81 

19.8 



TESTIMONY OF COL. HENRY J. LAMB. 

Col. Henry J. Lamb, district engineer of the department of public 
works of Canada, called on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, after 
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 

The Chairman. Where do you reside, Col. Lamb ? 

Col. Lamb. Windsor, Ontario. 

Mr. MacInnes. You are a civil engineer? 

Col. Lamb. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you are an officer of the public works depart¬ 
ment of the Dominion of Canada ? 

Col. Lamb. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you are the resident engineer of that district 
at Windsor, I understand ? 

Col. Lamb. The district engineer. 

Mr. MacInnes. How long have you filled that position? 

Col. Lamb. Seven and a half years. 

Mr. MacInnes. And you are familiar with the conditions of the 
channels and levels of the waterways ? 

Col. Lamb. Fairly familiar. 

Mr. MacInnes. As to this particular locality, have you made a 
special study of it ? 

Col. Lamb. Yes. 

Mr. MacInnes. In dealing with certain questions that have been 
submitted to this commission, I understand that you were asked to 
make a report. Have you made such a report ? 

Col. Lamb. I have; yes, sir. 

Mr. MacInnes. Would you give the commission the benefit of it? 

Col. Lamb. I was instructed by the chief of engineers of the public 
works department several months ago to report on this matter which 
is now before the commission, particularly with regard to the two 
questions involved. I subsequently discovered that it was necessary 
to secure considerable data. I found then, also, that Mr. Stewart, 
the chief hydrographer of the Dominion, had been instructed to make 
a somewhat similar report. We joined forces and arranged with the 
engineer employed to secure the data for Mr. Stewart to also furnish 
















128 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


me with the data from which we could make our calculations and 
subsequently submit our report. An arrangement was also entered 
into with the district engineer at Detroit whereby we undertook to 
interchange data secured, and he very kindly furnished me with 
levels which could not be obtained by our department in the time 
available, also with levels for past periods which he po^essed and 
we did not. In this way we have arrived at results, that is to say, 
the results of the calculation based on data secured. Those results 
are practically similar. My results are also similar to the results 
secured by Mr. Stewart. The sum total of the results, as regards the 
effect on the levels of the waters is as Col. Patrick and Mr. Stewart 
have already stated, that the cofferdam when built raised the level 
of the water. On the opening of the cofferdam the water lowered 
to an extent of an inch and a half lower than the mean level of the 
water previous to the construction of the said cofferdam. In treating 
the question as to the effect of the proposed dike, it became necessary, 
of course, to compute what the different discharges would be through 
the different channels after the dike, if built, were constructed. It 
also became necessary to investigate what the additional lowering 
would be by the widening of the channel in the cut to a width of 450 
feet. We all arrived at the same result, that the additional lowering 
of the water would be, approximately, one-half an inch, and that the 
total lowering with the width of the channel in the Livingstone 
Channel of 450 feet w6uld be, approximately 2 inches. 

The question first dealt with in my report was the question of 
compensation. In order to bring the levels back to the mean, or 
2 inches, higher than would obtain when additional width is given 
to Livingstone Channel, certain compensation was necessary. I agree 
that the dike as proposed would give this necessary compensation. 
I am of the opinion, however, that compensation could as well, if 
not better, be given elsewhere in these waters. I am not prepared 
to state exactly where, but probably at the end of the Trenton Chan¬ 
nel. By constructing the dam there for compensating purposes that 
would not in any way be interfering With the local interests, and it 
would give the desired results as regards compensation. 

Dealing with the effect of the dam locally, which it became my 
duty to do as Canadian district engineer, I found that the increase 
of current past Amherstburg will be, approximately, if the dike be 
constructed, about 13,000 cubic feet per second. In other words, 
from the present discharge of 66,000 cubic feet per second to 79,000 
cubic feet per second. This is also providing for the leaving of an 
opening in the dike of 300 feet wide for the purpose of allowing vessels 
which now cross the channel at that point daily to continue to use 
that course. 

The question as to whether or not this opening will allow an abso- 
futely safe and desirable passage for the vessels is one regarding which 
I am not entirely satisfied. The current will be so strong and the 
channel so narrow with the currents attacking the opening at more 
or less of an angle that I am afraid it will make a somewhat difficult 
channel, so far as the use of boats is concerned. 

Mr. Casgrain. What boats use this channel? 

Col. Lamb. The White Star Line running across and going down to 
Toledo and also to the adjoining islands on the other side of the river. 
They are passenger boats. They are going down the river from 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 129 

Detroit, and I am not sure of this point, but I think they call at 
points on the Canadian side on the lower Detroit River. 

Mr. Hough. At Toledo, Sugar Island, and at Port Huron. 

Mr. Casgrain. Are there any Canadian boats that cross over there ? 

Col. Lamb. Launches cross there very frequently; light-draft boats 
drawing from 2 to 4 feet, I should say. 

The existence of a cross current is established and is shown on the 
plan already furnished to the commission. The question presents 
itself as to the desirability or the necessity for this dam as a protec¬ 
tion to the existing Livingstone Channel. I think it will be admitted 
that a cross current is always undesirable, and that if protection can 
be given against it, it should be given in the interest of navigation. 
That this dike is absolutely necessary for the safety of the navigating 
of the Livingstone Channel does not appear to me to be yet well 
established. I am inclined to believe that with an additional 150 
feet of width and with proper lights, the channel may be, and prob¬ 
ably will be, navigated as safely as other points on the Great Lakes 
system. 

As regards the effect of the increased current past Amherstburg, I 
am unable to see that it would interfere seriously with local shipping 
at that point, but I understand that the mariners interested in calling 
daily at this point will give evidence which should be more valuable 
than any opinion I can offer on this question. 

In regard to the possibility of ice causing damage to interests at 
Amherstburg, the increase of current practically being slightly less 
than one-half mile per hour makes me think that there is not likely 
to be much damage from this cause. I can conceive such a situation, 
however, as the whole of the channel opening up between the Cana¬ 
dian shore and the proposed dike, and without any wind prevailing 
the additional quantity which would then be brought down the 
Amherstburg Channel could possibly under those circumstances do 
some slight damage because the proportion of it which now, as I 
understand, crosses the head of Bois Blanc Island would have to 
also continue past Amherstburg. 

Mr. MacInnes. Are there any other questions of levels with which 
you as resident engineer have been dealing which ought to be con¬ 
sidered in connection with this matter ? 

Col. Lamb. In considering the question of compensation it became 
necessary, particularly under the wording of question 1, where it 
says that under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding 
navigation and other uses of the Livingstone Channel and other chan¬ 
nels on the Detroit River—it became necessary to consider the levels 
of the river both above and below. It also became necessary to 
consider whether or not those levels were being affected by any 
cause or made likely to be affected. It is general knowledge, and I 
have had to deal more or less with the fact in the past two or three 
years in connection with the construction of breakwaters and other 
structures in my district, that the levels of the lakes, particularly as 
was experienced in 1911, were becoming seriously lowered; and know¬ 
ing of that situation, I naturally took it into consideration in con¬ 
nection with this matter. 

I wish to say that all the results which we have obtained are based 
upon the fact "that no further interferences would be made with the 


130 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


supply of this river. It is well known that if you interfere with any 
of the water below Lake Superior, that is, lower the levels, you will 
naturally interfere with the supply of the Detroit River. If you 
interfere with the supply, you must change the levels. If you lower 
the levels you have an entirely different situation to deal with. 
Therefore, should there be any further interference the result, which 
the three engineers interested were engaged in obtaining, would be, 
in my opinion, more or less useless. We also know, as was stated by 
the previous witness, that there has been a withdrawal from Chicago 
of at least 7,000 cubic feet per second in the last few years, notwith¬ 
standing that the permit provided for only 4,167 cubic feet per sec¬ 
ond. I learned shortly alter making these calculations that on the 
30th of June, 1910, an additional permit was granted by the Secretary 
of War of the United States for the construction of the Calumet site 
canal, which, it seems to be the general opinion, would carry off an 
additional 4,000 cubic feet per second, although the permit itself says 
that not more than the original 4,167 cubic feet per second shall be 
withdrawn from Lake Michigan. This work, I believe, is now under 
construction, and if this additional 4,000 feet is carried off we will 
then have some 11,000 cubic feet per second being withdrawn, or an 
entirely different situation from that which we have to-day. This, 
I consider, seriously affects the question as to whether or not this 
dike will give the necessary compensation. 

Mr. MacInnes. So far as the current is concerned, Col. Lamb, if a 
certain submerged weir were put in Niagara, how would that affect 
the situation? 

Col. Lamb. To which currents are you referring? 

Mr. MacInnes. To the cross currents. 

Col. Lamb. It will likely improve the cross-currents situation. 
It will lessen the cross currents to a certain extent by the improvement 
of the slope between Lake Erie and the head of the existing Living¬ 
stone Channel. 

Mr. MacInnes. Is this uncertainty as to what the real lake level is 
owing to these diversions at Chicago troubling you in any way, 
apart from the question before this board? 

Col. Lamb. Yes; it is troubling us seriously in regard to the sub¬ 
structure of our breakwaters. On Lake Erie particularly we usually 
have designed and built our breakwaters with a substructure of 
timber. It was always necessary to consider the keeping of that 
timber below water so that it might not decay as it would if exposed 
to air or wind and water; that is where the water rises and falls below 
and above the timber. We discovered two years ago that the level 
to which we were then carrying the substructure of our breakwater 
was too low, and in one or two cases we became rather exercised over 
this fact. 

Mr. Streeter. Is there any one else who desires to ask Col. Lamb 
any questions ? 

Col. Patrick. Col. Lamb, you spoke of the possible effect of a weir 
near the outlet of Lake Erie and its beneficial effect in the lower part 
of the Detroit River. Is it not a fact that if such a weir were put 
in place there would be a cumulative effect all the way up to Lake 
Huron and Lake Michigan, probably due to the rise of water sur¬ 
face ? Would not that very shortly restore the slopes in the Detroit 
River almost to what they now are ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 131 

Col. Lamb. It would improve some of the existing slopes in the 
Detroit River. 

Col. Patrick. But when the entire effect of that weir is felt, will the 
slopes in the Detroit River differ very materially from what they 
are now ? 

Col. Lamb. Not very materially, but there will be a slight change. 
Col. Patrick. Then the ultimate effect of such a weir on the lower 
Detroit River would be almost negligible ? 

Col. Lamb. There would be a very slight change. 

(Colonel Lamb submitted the following copy of his detailed report 
to Eugene D. Lafleur, Esq., Chief Engineer, Department of Public 
Works at Ottawa:) 

Windsor, Ontario, February 10, 1913. 

Sir: Complying with instructions contained in your letter No. 1907, dated 28th 
May, 1912, I have the honor to submit the following report on the two questions as 
referred to the International Joint Commission, relative to the proposed construction 
of a dam in the lower Detroit River between the head of Bois Blanc Island and the 
southerly end of the spoil bank on the east side of the Livingstone Channel: 

The two questions referred to above are— * 

1. Under all the circumstances and conditions surrounding the navigation and other 
uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on either side of the 
international boundary, is the erection of any dike or other compensatory work deemed 
necessary or desirable for the improvement or safety of navigation at or in the vicinity 
of Bois Blanc Island in connection with rock excavation and dredging in Livingstone 
Channel authorized by the river and harbor act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stats., 655), 
and described in House Document 676, Sixty-first Congress, second session, sundry 
civil act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 729), sundry civil act of March 4, 1911 (36 Stats., 
1405), of the United States, and now being carried out by the Government of the 
United States? 

2. If in answer to question (1) any dike or other compensatory works are found to 
be necessary or desirable, will the work or works proposed by the United States and 
provided for in the rivers and harbors act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 655), and located 
so far as to connect the north end of Bois Blanc Island to the southeast end of the 
existing cofferdam on the east side of Livingstone Channel, opposite and below 
Stoney Island, be sufficient for the purpose; and if not what additional or other com¬ 
pensatory works should be constructed and where should they be located in order to 
serve most advantageously the interests involved on both sides of the international 
boundary? 

In preparation of this report the following data has been used in the study of the 
gauge readings between and including Amherstburg and St. Clair Flats Canal. 

1. The Report of the International Waterways Commission on the Regulation of 
Lake Erie. 

2. Table IX in the Report of Chief of Engineers United States Army, Appendix 
EEL, 1914. 

3. Gauge records taken by the United States Corps of Engineers during years 
1909-10-11, while the cofferdam was in place and closed; as also records secured by 
the same corps after the opening of the channel in June, 1912. These records were 
secured through the courtesy of the United States district engineer at Detroit. 

The above information supplied the principal data on which the conduct of these 
waters could be gauged before the cofferdam was constructed in the Livingstone Chan¬ 
nel, and during period said cofferdam was closed. 

In order to determine the action of the waters after the cofferdam was opened in 
June, 1912, it was necessary to obtain a series of measurements in order to compute 
discharges through various channels in the river. 

This information was obtained by the hydrographic survey department of Canada, 
during the months of August and September, 1912, under the direction of Mr. William 
J. Stewart, and with the cooperation of this department on the understanding that the 
data secured would be available for the purposes of this report, as well as any other 
report which this Government might call for. 

For the gauge records self-recording gauges were used at the main points, but staff 
gauges were employed at the various measurement sections. For the stream measure¬ 
ments two Haskell meters were used and carefully rated; and data thus secured with 
other plans are appended hereto, and are as follows: 


132 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


DISCHARGE SECTIONS. 

(a) Trenton section, near the bridge connecting Grosse Isle with the mainland. 

( b ) Stoney Island, Grosse Isle section, near the bridge connecting Grosse Isle with 
Stoney Island. 

(c) Livingstone Channel section, near middle of cofferdam. 

(d) Limekiln Crossing or Gordon section, at Gordon. 

( e ) Bois Blanc, Amherstburg section, short distance below Amherstburg water¬ 
works. 

(/) Bois Blanc Island and the cofferdam section. 

2. Plan showing currents between cofferdam and Bois Blanc Island. 

3. Plan showing tabulated results of discharge measurements taken by Canadian 
hydrographic survey in August and September, 1912. 

4. Profile showing slope relations under different conditions of the river before and 
after improvements, both executed and suggested. 

5. Plan showing cross sections of north and south openings through cofferdam, 
Livingstone Channel. 

In addition to above, respectfully submitted herewith is a chart of the lower Detroit 
River, and on which are shown: 

1. Location of gauges between and including the salt works and Amherstburg gauges. 

2. Locations of discharge measurements. 

3. LiVingstone Channel and its cofferdam. 

4. Proposed dike between the head of Bois Blanc Island and the cofferdam of the 
Livingstone Channel, and for the construction of which the approval of this Govern¬ 
ment is asked. 

The following relations between the gauges at Mamajuda, Gibraltar, Grosse Isle, 
and Amherstburg, as established by the United States Government between 24th 
April and 23d July, 1909, were accepted and used: 

Fall from Mamajuda to Gibraltar 1.33 feet. 

Fall from Grosse Isle to Amherstburg 0.22 feet. 

Owing to the various conditions of the level of Lake Erie during the period on which 
these readings were taken, and the consequent effect upon the slopes from Lake St. 
Clair Flats to Lake Erie, it became necessary to reduce to means all the datum. The 
datum accepted, and as used, is the mean level of Lake Erie at Amherstburg, eleva¬ 
tion 572.84, and the mean fall from Lake St. Clair Flats Canal to Amherstburg, 2.84 
feet, and as found to have obtained during the period 1860-1907. All levels and 
slopes were adjusted to this datum. 

Discharge measurements were reduced to mean condition for September, 1912, 
under the assumption that the river had then settled into a steady condition after the 
opening of the Livingstone Channel. 

In determining the probable condition of the river with the proposed dam erected, 
the levels were adjusted to the datum adopted above Amherstburg. 

The mean levels of the various gauges in Detroit River for the period of 1860-1907 
were: 

Table 1. 


Lake Erie. 572. 60 

Amherstburg. 572. 84 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573.00 

Limekiln Crossing. 573. 24 

Ouellettes. 573. 80 

Mamajuda. 574.27 

Salt \forks. 574. 51 

Windmill Point. 575. 40 

St. Clair Flats. 575. 68 


The cofferdam was completed in 1908 and closed until June, 1912. 
The readings of the gauges for these years were: 


Table 2. 



1909 

1910 

1911 

Mean. 

Amherstburg.. 

572.73 
573.15 
573.91 
574.96 
574.28 
575.32 

572.39 
572.83 
573.55 
574.72 
573.95 
575.10 

571.86 

572.33 

573.07 

574.06 

573.46 

574.54 

572.33 

572.81 

573.51 

574.58 

573.90 

574.99 

Limekiln Crossing. 

Ouellettes. 

Windmill Point. 

Mamajuda. 

St. Clair Flats. 



























THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 133 

For the purpose of comparison it became necessary to make the following adjust¬ 
ments: 

1. The increase made necessary by raising the Amherstburg level from 572.33 to 
572.84, the standard adopted. 

2. The increase to all levels to adopt the standard slope of 2.84 feet, St. Clair Flats 
to Amherstburg. 

3. The backwaters to all levels above Ouellettes occasioned by the water being 
raised at that point by the construction of the cofferdam. 

The backwater rise in Lake St. Clair for a rise of 1 foot in Lake Erie during a 
natural mean flow of the Detroit River is 0.61 foot (see par. 121 of appendix to report 
International Waterways Commission on regulation of Lake Erie). 

The backwater rise at Ouellettes for 1 foot in Lake Erie and 0.61 in St. Clair is 
0.86 foot and the backwater in Lake St. Clair is 71 per cent of this. 

Therefore, under normal conditions of lake level and river slope and discharge, the 
means of 1909, 1910, 1911 become: 


Table 3. 


Lake Erie... . 572. 60 

Amherstburg.'*. 572.84 

Limekiln Crossing. 573. 33 

Ouellettes. 574. 25 

Mamajuda. 574.67 

SaltWorks. 574.90 

Windmill Point. 575. 72 

St. Clair Flats. 576. 00 


The result of a comparison between Tables 1 and 3 shows: 

That the construction of the cofferdam raised the water at the head of the dam or 
at Ouellette^gauge above the mean level of 1860-1907,0.45 foot, at St. Clair Flats, 0.32 
foot, and at Limekiln Crossing, 0.09 foot. 

Some two months after the Livingstone Channel was opened for a width of 300 feet, 
or in September, 1912, the following levels were recorded: 

Table 4. 


Lake Erie. 572. 50 

Amherstburg. 572. 74 

Limekiln Crossing. 573.18 

Ouellettes. 573. 59 

Mamaj uda. 574. 02 

Windmill Point. 575.18 

St. Clair Flats. 575.55 


By adjustment to the standard level of Lake Erie and the standard slope St. Clair 
Flats to Amherstburg, this becomes: 

Table 5. 


Lake Erie. 572. 60 

Amherstburg. 572.84 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573. 00 

Limekiln Crossing. .. 573. 27 

Ouellettes... 573. 68 

Mamajuda. 574.11 

SaltWorks. 574.33 

Windmill Point. 575. 25 

St. Clair Flats.-■. 575. 61 


A comparison made between Tables 3 and 5 shows that in September, or after the 
opening of the Livingstone Channel, for a width of 300 feet, the following action had 
taken place: 

Compared with the levels of the mean of 1860-1907: 

At Ouellettes, water had fallen 0.12 foot. 

At St. Clair Flats, water had fallen 0.07 foot. 

At Limekiln Crossing, water had risen 0.03 foot. 

The following table illustrates the various changes in slope which occurred on the 
river during the period considered, and by which it will be seen that the change 
effected in the relation between St. Clair Flats and Ouellettes gauges during the 


























134 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


time the cofferdam was in place was almost entirely readjusted by the opening of the 
Livingstone Channel: 

Table 6. 


Fall. 

Mean, 

1860- 

1907 

1909 

1910 

1911 

Mean, 

1909- 

1911 

Sep¬ 

tember, 

1912 

With 

dam. 

St. Clair Flats to Amherstburg. 

1,000 

.666 

1,000 

.544 

1,000 

.570 

1,000 

.548 

1,000 

.554 

1,000 

.700 

1,000 

.632 

St. Clair Flats to Ouellettes. 

St. Clair Flats to Limekiln Crossing. 

.859 

.838 

.837 

.825 

.833 

.843 

.723 



_ The following values for the coefficients of the different discharge sections in the 
river were determined and subsequently used in computing discharges: 


In Trenton section “C” was found to be. 71. 2 

In Stoney section “C” was found to be. 81.1 

In Livingstone section “C” was found to be. 77. 2 

In Limekiln Crossing “C” was found to be. 81. 7 

In Amherstburg “C” was found to be. 76. 4 

In Bois Blanc cofferdam “C" was found to be. 30. 3 

The discharges for September, 1912, were then found to be: 

Table 7. C. f. s. 

Trenton Channel. 45, 600 

Stoney Channel. 13, 200 

Livingstone Channel. 38, 200 

Limekiln Crossing. 108, 000 


205, 000 


Amherstburg.. 66,000 

Bois Blanc cofferdam. 42, 000 


108, 000 

In considering the effect of the construction of the dike between the head of Bois 
Blanc Island and existing cofferdam, if an opening with an average width of 300 
feet be left in this dike, and on the location as shown on chart appended, it is esti¬ 
mated that the discharge through the opening will be 16,000 cubic feet per second. 
Deducting this amount from the total flow of 42,000 cubic feet in the Bois Blanc 
cofferdam section leaves 26,000 cubic feet to be taken care of by remaining channels. 
The effect of this dike will be to raise the water in Amherstburg Channel in vicinity 
of the dike, and it is computed the following levels would then obtain: 

Table 8. 


Foot of Amherstburg Channel... 572 . 74 

Amherstburg gauge. 572. 80 

Head of Amherstburg Channel. 573 . 27 

Limekiln Crossing.. 573, 

Ouellettes. 573] 87 

With the dam in place and the levels at Amherstburg and Ouellettes gauges at 
572.74 and 573.87, respectively, September, 1912, conditions, the discharges through 
the river would be: 

Table 9. C. f. s. 

Trenton Channel. 49 10O 

Stoney Channel. 45 ’ 900 

Livingstone Channel. 45’ 000 

Limekiln Crossing. 95’ 000 


205, 000 

Amherstburg Channel. 70 non 

Gap in dike... 1!!:!!!!!::::: wiooo 


95, 000 












































THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 135 


Adjusting levels of table 8 to standard of mean levels of Lake Erie and Amherstburg 
for the period 1860-1907 they would read: 

Table 10. 


Lake Erie. 572. 60 

Amherstburg. 572.84 

Head of Amherstburg Channel . 573. 31 

Limekiln Crossing. 573. 65 

Ouellettes . 573. 92 

Mamajuda . 574. 40 

Salt Works. 574. 65 

Windmill Point. 575. 49 

St. Clair Flats. 575. 77 


Comparing table 5 and table 10 shows that the construction of the dike as proposed 
with the present Livingstone Channel will raise the water above the level of last 
September, 1912— 


At Lake St. Clair. 0.16 

At Ouellettes boat house (head of channel).24 

At Limekiln Crossing.38 

At head of Amherstburg Channel.31 

Or above the mean of 1860-1907— 

At Lake St. Clair.09 

At Ouellettes. 10 

At Limekiln Crossing.37 

At Head of Amherstburg Channel.28 


VELOCITIES OBSERVED AND COMPUTED. 

The following mean velocities were measured in the various channels during Sep¬ 
tember, 1912, and alongside these are tabulated those expected to be arrived at with 
the dike in place: 

Table 11. 



Measured 

mean 

velocity. 

Computed 
mean 
velocity 
with dike 
built. 

Trenton. 

Ft. per sec. 
1,670 
1,826 
2,617 
3,151 
3,709 
3,600 
2,815 
3,120 

Ft. per sec. 
1,790 
2,194 
2,190 
3,761 
3,600 
3,370 
3,370 
3,545 
3.96 

Stoney.. 

Gordon. 

Livingstone in cut. 

Livingstone through cofferdam. 

Livingstone, 450 feet. 

Amherstburg . . . 

At head, Amherstburg Channel. 

At foot, Amherstburg Channel. 




The various regimens of the river may be seen in the following table: 


Table 12. 


Gauge. 

Mean. 

September, 

Bois Blanc 

Trenton 

1860-1907. 

1909-1911. 

1912. 

dike. 

dike. 

St. Clair Flats. 

575.68 

576.00 

575.61 

575.77 

575.76 

Windmill Point. 

575.40 

575. 72 

575.25 

575.49 

575.48 

Salt Works . . 

574.51 

574.90 

574.33 

574.62 

574.61 

Mamajnda . . 

574. 27 

574. 67 

574.11 

574.38 

574.37 

Oiifillp.ttas .... . 

573.80 

574. 25 

573.68 

573. 92 

573.91 

Limekiln Crossing... 

573.24 

573.33 

573. 27 

573.65 

573.48 

Head Amherstburg Channel. 

573.00 

572.84 

573.00 

573.31 

573.20 

Amherstburg. 

572.84 

572.60 

572.84 

572.84 

572.84 























































136 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Cross currents .—Data secured in September, 1912, in an investigation of cross cur¬ 
rents between head of Bois Blanc Island and existing cofferdam are shown platted on 
plan appended, and from which it will be seen that cross currents do exist in this 
locality, and at variable angles and velocities. 

The effects on navigation of these cross currents are treated later in this report. 

Livingstone Channel with a full width of 450 feet .—Appended hereto is plan showing 
cross section of opening at upper and lower ends of that portion of Livingstone Channel 
surrounded by cofferdams. 

With the opening up of this channel to its full width of 450 feet, and with the con¬ 
struction of proposed dike, it is estimated that the cross section will be increased 
from 10,300 square feet to 12,200 square feet, with a surface datum elevation of 573.25, 
and the discharge under the same slope will increase from 38,200 cubic feet per second 
to 44,000 cubic feet per second. The estimated discharge through this channel if 
the cofferdam be built has been previously given in Table 9. It it further estimated 
that this additional discharge of 5,800 cubic feet through this channel would only 
lower the water at Ouellettes 0.03. 


SUMMARY. 

A summary of results obtained from data secured and calculations made is as 
follows: 

1. The levels of the waters in this vicinity are practically the same to-day, with 
a 300-foot channel through the Livingstone Channel and without the proposed dike, 
as they were previous to the beginning of the construction of the Livingstone Channel. 
This is no doubt largely due to the compensation provided by the dumping of the 
material excavated. (See p. 6 of report.) 

2. With the full width of 450 feet of channel opened up in the Livingstone Channel 
within the cofferdam, and without construction of proposed dike, the effect of the 
levels on the waters will be a lowering of approximately 2 inches below 1860-1907 
datum. 

3. If the dike be constructed, and with a width of channel through the cofferdams 
of 450 feet, the general level of the waters in vicinity will be slightly raised. (See 
pp. 8 and 9 of report.) 

4. With the proposed dike constructed, the discharge through the Amherstburg 
Channel at the Waterworks will be increased from 66,000 cubic feet per second to 
79,000 cubic feet per second, and the current increased from 2.81 feet per second, or 
1.91 miles per hour, to 3.37 feet per second, or 2.3 miles per hour. 

5. That cross currents do exist across the head of Bois Blanc Island. That these 
cross currents affect the safe navigation of that portion of the Livingstone Channel 
into which they run does not appear to have been yet well established. While it is 
stated by a number of captains who took vessels through this channel after it was 
opened on October 19, 1912, that they experienced difficulty in keeping off the west 
bank of channel when these cross currents struck them, it is noted that before the close 
of navigation on December 14,1912, some 1,227 vessels passed down this channel, and 
as far as the writer can ascertain all went through safely. It does appear, however, 
that none of these vessels passed down the channel except with favorable weather 
prevailing, or in other words the requirement of protection against these cross currents 
with unfavorable weather conditions prevailing has not yet been tested. 

It is understood considerable exception was taken by the cap tarns of the boats 
using this channel to the blinking lights used for marking this channel last fall, and 
that a request has been made by the Lake Carriers’ Association for the substitution of 
fixed lights for the blinking lights. 

6. Attention is particularly drawn to the fact that, in the series of observations 
taken and computations made it was assumed that no factor need be taken into con¬ 
sideration which would in any way affect materially the ordinary levels of the Detroit 
River and in consequence it was therefore accepted that under no condition would 
any further diversion from the waters of Lake Michigan be allowed by the United 
States Government. 

Since the data herein mentioned was secured and treated with, it has been learned 
that by a permit dated 30th June, 1910, granted by the United States Government, 
the construction of the Calumet Sag Canal was authorized, and that said canal is now 
under construction. Further, that on its completion an additional 4,000 cubic feet 
per second will be drawn from Lake Michigan, therebv making a total diversion of 
approximately 11,000 cubic feet which will be taken‘from Lake Michigan by the 
Chicago Drainage Canal, instead of 4,167 cubic feet per second allowed by original 
permit. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


137 


It readil Y s ® en that as the River St. Clair, Lake St. Clair, and Detroit River 
are affected by any increase or decrease of discharge from Lake Huron, any inter¬ 
ference with the levels of the upper lakes will, in consequence, affect the levels of 
the Detroit River. 

It has been estimated that the diversion of 8,000 cubic feet per second at Chicago 
means a lowering of 3^ inches in Lake St. Clair, 5 inches at Lake Erie outlet, and 4£ 
mches at Ouellettes gauge in the Detroit River. 


CONCLUSIONS. 


In answer to question 1 on page 1 of this report, it is hereby respectfully submitted: 

1. That while it does appear, owing to the existence of cross currents at the head of 
Bois Blanc Island, that protection to navigation in the Livingstone Channel seems 
desirable in this locality, whether such protection is actually necessary for the safe 
navigation of the Livingstone Channel in this vicinity, needs yet to be established 
by evidence on this point, or by actual experience of vessels navigating this portion of 
the channel imder adverse weather conditions. 

Also that the consequent increase of current and discharge which would obtain in 
the Amherstburg Channel if the proposed dike were built is not desirable if it can be 
avoided without sacrificing general interests. As to the contention that such increase 
of current would interfere with the safe navigation of vessels landing at Amherstburg 
and Bois Blanc docks, this appears doubtful, and can no doubt be better established 
by evidence on this point. 

Also, as a compensating factor the site as proposed for this dike is not desirable, 
as it is estimated that the purpose of compensation can be as well, if not better, served, 
and without interference to local interests, by the construction of a dam at the foot 
of the Trenton Channel. 

In answer to question 2: 

Compensation such as would be afforded by the construction of this proposed dike 
appears to be practically sufficient, under existing conditions, and with a 450 foot 
channel through the cofferdams of the Livingstone Channel, providing no further 
inteference be allowed with that portion' of supply to this river which is secured from 
Lake Michigan. 

The latter part of question 2 is answered above in the last paragraph of answer to 
question 1. 

In conclusion I beg to state that an arrangement made with the United States dis¬ 
trict engineer at Detroit last fall has been carried out, whereby a complete interchange 
of data and calculations has been made between these two offices. In this way much 
valuable information was secured for this department and the desired result, it is 
hoped, obtained of agreement between the United States district engineer and myself 
as to the correctness of data and computations herewith presented. 

The cooperation and assistance rendered by Mr. William J. Stewart, chief hydrog- 
rapher, Dominion Government, have also been of great value, and Mr. Stewart’s sys¬ 
tems of deductions and calculations have been practically adopted throughout this 
report, after having been all carefully checked by this office. However, Table 7, 
Table 8j and Table 9 have been accepted from Mr. Stewart as correct, as they are direct 
findings from the Hydrographic Survey made in August and September, 1912. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

H. J. Lamb, District Engineer. 


Eugene D. Lafleur, Esq., 

Chief Engineer , P. W. D., Ottawa , Ontario. 


Mr. MacInnes. I would like to be allowed to place in the record a 
copy of the opinion of W. H. Bixby, Chief of Engineers of the United 
States Army, dated February 28, 1912. 

(The report referred to reads as follows:) 


Appendix I. 


War Department, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington , February 28, 1912. 

Memorandum for the Secretary of War. 

(As to the sanitary district diversion of water from Lake Michigan, through the 
Chicago River, Sanitary District Canal, Illinois River to the Mississippi Valley.) 

There are several special features of this Chicago sanitary district diversion and 
Illinois River power and waterway proposition which need special explanation to 
anyone studying the proposition. 


138 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


For purposes of navigation alone by canal and canalized river from Lake Michigan 
to the Mississippi River, on the Illinois River and its headwaters and connecting 
canals and to keep the locks and pools full, a diversion from Lake Michigan of less 
than 1,000 second-feet of water will easily supply any reasonable demands and is 
all that will be actually necessary; and any greater diversion is a greater injury than 
benefit to navigation. The works of the sanitary district of Chicago originally con¬ 
structed mainly for purposes of sanitation were designed to allow the diversion of 
10,000 second-feet, which they now request, and they are now found to be large 
enough for a total diversion of 14,000 second-feet, the additional 4,000 second-feet 
having been requested by them and refused by the War Department a few years ago 
(injunction suit still in progress), the extra water to be taken from Lake Michigan 
through the Calumet River and a connecting canal following the Sag route. The 
amounts requested, while perhaps needed at the present time, will not be necessary 
later, after the full installation of the more modern improved methods of treating 
sewage. The War Department, while awaiting the definite action of Congress, has so 
far permitted the diversion of 4,167 second-feet. The sanitary district by its own 
recent statements, is understood to be using about 7,000 second-feet. While it 
appears to have been assumed at times that the sanitary district will be finally 
allowed by the United States to divert 10,000 second-feet so long as actually neces¬ 
sary for sanitary purposes, the diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes from their 
natural outlet so far as desired merely for aid for power development is of doubtful 
legality by reason of the terms of the recent treaty between the United States and 
Great Britain, which appears to require the approval of such a diversion by the 
International Joint Commission created pursuant to said treaty. 

The treaty enables riparian owners of Canada, as well as of the United States, who 
consider themselves injured by such diversion, to bring suit in United States courts 
to protect their interests. The treaty also, although recognizing as proper the use of 
water necessary for sanitary purposes, provides for action, if necessary, by the com¬ 
mission after request from the United States Congress, or the Canadian Parliament, 
and no other organization has power of final decision. It is the opinion of the en¬ 
gineer, Lakes-to-the-Gulf Waterway Board (Jan. 23, 1911), that, in view of the rights 
and interests of navigation, only such water should be diverted from Lake Michigan 
as is indispensable for sanitation, and then only with a provision for construction 
and maintenance of proper compensating works in the outlets of the Lakes to prevent 
a lowering of their levels, and that although water thus diverted may be used inci¬ 
dentally for power purposes, great care must be exercised by the War Department, 
when waiving the objections of navigation to the diversion of water for sanitary pur¬ 
poses, to not extend such waiver beyond the amount actually necessary for sanita¬ 
tion alone. 

Diversion of water from Lake Michigan and the St. Lawrence Basin into the Illi¬ 
nois River and the Mississippi River and the Mississippi River Basin is seriously 
objectionable from many standpoints, and should be permitted under the recent 
treaty with Canada only to such extent as is necessary foi* sanitation of the city of 
Chicago. The objections to such diversions of water are briefly as follows: 

(а) The levels of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, for the last 20 years and at the 
present moment, are lower than their average of the last 50 years; and their levels 
are now again falling. Every foot of draft in the harbors of these lakes and in the 
connecting rivers—St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit—is exceedingly valuable to navi¬ 
gation; and every cubic foot per second of water flow taken out of Lake Michigan in 
excess of its natural outflow through Lake Huron and the St. Clair River is a per¬ 
manent loss to the waterflow of the St. Lawrence Basin, and tends to injure naviga¬ 
tion over the entire waterway from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. While 
compensating works at the outlets of Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, and 
Lake Ontario may be possible to an extent sufficient to maintain the existing and past 
levels of these lakes, they will be very expensive and can not in any case prevent 
loss to the St. Lawrence Basin of any water diverted into the Mississippi Basin 
and any loss of water by such diversion will make necessary further expensive con¬ 
traction works or dams or dredging in St. Clair, Detroit, and St. Lawrence Rivers 
in order to maintain channel depths. Moreover, the same loss of water will per¬ 
manently injure and diminish the water-power development capacity of the Niagara 
and St. Lawrence Rivers. 

(б) Moreover, the dumpage of sewage into rivers while heretofore allowable is becom¬ 
ing more objectionable every year and is being prevented more and more every year 
by enactments of State legislatures throughout the country. Chicago, with reference 
to the Illinois River, is in much the same situation as Worcester, Mass., with reference 
to the Blackstone River. In days long past the sewage of Worcester flowed into the 
Blackstone and was carried down through the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


139 


into Narragansett Bay. The danger and damage to the people and industries of the 
Blackstone River led to enactments of laws by the Massachusetts Legislature forbid¬ 
ding further sewage contamination of any of the State rivers, thus forcing the inland 
cities of Massachusetts to the disposal of sewage by modern improved methods based 
upon mechanical and chemical treatment. As Chicago and the cities along the Illi¬ 
nois River increase in population, it is to be expected that the results of the sewage 
contamination of the river, and the legislative action of Massachusetts will be practi¬ 
cally duplicated in Illinois, where the remedy will be possible at a lower cost per head 
of population; after which the diversion of large quantities of Lake Michigan water 
into Illinois River, being then no longer necessary for the sanitation of Chicago, and 
neither now nor then for navigation between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River, 
and being already of detriment and serious danger to the important interests of navi¬ 
gation of the Great Lakes system, will no longer have any reason for continuance except 
for local benefit inside the State of Illinois. 

- (c) Looked at from the point of .view of conservation of water power every cubic foot 
of water diverted from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River is an economic loss to the 
United States as a whole, as well as to Canada, because the local conditions as regard 
river slope and fall are such that this water if sent through the Niagara and St. Lawrence 
Rivers to the Atlantic can develop twice.as much power in the State of New York and, 
at the same time, twice as much power in the Dominion of Canada as it can develop 
in Illinois if sent through the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico. 

From the above it is evident that it is of the greatest importance to the United States 
that the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River should be lim¬ 
ited to merely such amount as is actually indispensable to sanitation; and that the 
United States should reserve to itself the right to determine such amount every few 
years as local conditions change. 

W. H. Bixby, 

Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

Mr. MacInnes. I would also like to be allowed to place in the rec¬ 
ord the opinion of Hon. Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War of the 
United States, dated January 8, 1913, in the matter of the applica¬ 
tion of the trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, Ill., for per¬ 
mission to divert from Lake Michigan 10,000 cubic feet of water per 
second. The portions of the opinion to which I would like to direct 
the attention of the commission are these: 

In a word, every drop of water taken out of Chicago necessarily tends to nullify costly 
improvements made under direct authority of Congress throughout the Great Lakes, 
and a withdrawal of the amount now applied for would nullify such expenditures to 
the amount of many millions of dollars, as well as inflict an even greater loss upon 
the navigation interests using such waters (p. 7). 

It remains only to consider certain special arguments that have been pressed upon 
me. It has been urged that the levels of the Lakes, even if lowered, could be restored 
by compensating works. To a certain extent that is true. But the very nature of this 
consideration offers another illustration of the importance of having the whole ques¬ 
tion passed upon by Congress. Such compensating works can only be constructed by 
the authority of Congress and at very considerable cost. It is not a matter which is in 
the hands of the Secretary of War. Permission to divert water which will at one and 
the same time nullify the effect of past appropriations and make necessary similar 
expenditures in the future should be granted only with the express consent of the 
body in whose hands the making of such appropriations and the authorization of such 
works rests. 

Furthermore, in most cases such compensating works could only be constructed 
with the joint consent of our neighbor Canada. The United States Government alone 
would be unable, even if it were willing to spend its own funds, to compensate for the 
damage done through the lowering of these levels unless Canada were willing to join 
in constructing the portion of such works which would necessarily stand upon Canadian 
soil. 

The question therefore becomes not merely national but international, and this 
leads me to the consideration of the arguments which were urged by both sides in 
reference to the treaty with Great Britain in respect to Canada of January 11, 1909 
(pp. 9 and 10). 


4 


140 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Then I wish also to invite the commission’s attention to the fourth 
conclusion contained in this report, which is as follows: 

Fourth. That the provisions of the Canadian treaty for a settlement by joint com¬ 
mission of “questions or matters of difference” between the United. States and Canada 
offer a further reason why no administrative officer should authorize a further diver¬ 
sion of water, manifestly so injurious to Canada, against Canadian protest (p. 11). 

The Chairman. We will accept that, Mr. Maclnnes, as a part of 
your case. 

(The decision of the Secretary of War referred to by Mr. Maclnnes 
is marked ‘'Exhibit No. 1” on behalf of the Dominion of Canada.) 

Mr. MacInnes. That closes the case so far as the Dominion of 
Canada is concerned. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE R. PEARSON. 

George R. Pearson, of Owens Sound, Canada, called on behalf of 
the Dominion Marine Association and shipping interests of Canada, 
after having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 

Mr. King. How long have you been navigating the Lakes ? 

Mr. Pearson. About 30 years. 

Mr. King. What vessel are you in command of at the present time ? 

Mr. Pearson. The steamer Emperor. 

Mr. King. Belonging to what company ? 

Mr. Pearson. The Inland Lines (Ltd.). 

Mr. King. What is her length ? 

Mr. Pearson. Five hundred and twenty-five feet. 

Mr. King. And her beam ? 

Mr. Pearson. Fifty-six feet; 32 feet depth; carrying capacity 
about 10,000 tons. 

Mr. King. She is slightly larger than the steamer Osier mentioned 
yesterday ? 

Mr. Pearson. Somewhat. 

Mr. King. Have you run the Livingstone Channel since it was 
opened ? 

Mr. Pearson. Once. 

Mr. King. Loaded? 

Mr. Pearson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. King. What time of the year was it ? 

Mr. Pearson. It was about the first part of November. 

Mr. King. Will you tell the commission your experiences with 
that cross current ? 

Mr. Pearson. I found the cross current to be pretty heavy at the 
time I went through. From information that I got previous to going 
down I kept to the eastward of the channel when just below the 
dike. By heading onto the cribs on the east side I counteracted the 
set of the current until such time as I got near the crib later on. 

Mr. King. Did you get into danger in any way? 

Mr. Pearson. None whatever. 

Mr. King. I suppose, Mr. Pearson, it is always desirable where 
possible to cut off cross currents ? 

Mr. Pearson. Yes, sir; the simpler the channel is the better we 
would like it; the stiller the wateij is, you have more control of your 
boat. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


141 


Mr. King. Would you say with reference to the present proposal 
to build this dike along the island to the cofferdam that it would be 
a matter of additional convenience to you or a matter of additional 
necessity ? 

Mr. Pearson. I think it would be a convenience. I do not think it 
would interfere with us going down. I seemed to dislike the entrance 
to the channel more than I did the cross current. 

Mr. King. The entrance above ? 

Mr. Pearson. The entrance above; yes. I feared it more at the 
time. 

Mr. King. I think you told me that you refrained from going 
down the channel on one occasion ? 

Mr. Pearson. I did. That was about the 24th of November. 
I went down there one time at night and there were two vertical 
red lights there which I had never seen before, and I continued down 
the other course until it was too late to make a turn and I went 
down the Amlierstburg Channel. 

Mr. King. You broke the rules because you had to go on? 

Mr. Pearson. I would rather take the devil I knew than the devil 
I do not know. 

Mr. King. Where were those lights ? 

Mr. Pearson. Below the entrance to the channel. 

Mr. King. They are not usually there ? 

Mr. Pearson. They were not there when I went down before. I 
spoke to the man ana told him that these lights were confusing and 
asked him if they intended to allow them to remain there, and he 
said yes. But he was just anchored a little to the westward of the 
easterly gas buoy. 

Mr. King. I suppose that the second time you do go down the 
channel, with the benefit of the experience that you have had, you 
will not feel yourself in any danger? 

Mr. Pearson. No; if it were better lighted. 

Mr. King. I am referring, of course, to daytime. 

Mr. Pearson. I would have no hesitation. 

Mr. King. You have had no experience with regard to the lights 
in the channel ? 

Mr. Pearson. Only in just noting them and in going down that 
night. They were so confusing that I would not attempt it.. You 
could not pick up the line of the dike at all. You would immediately 
get your eyes on a light and out it would go. You could not get any 
two lines at all to line up the dike. 

Mr. King. Have you anything to say with reference to the pro¬ 
posed opening of* this dike which is under discussion ? 

Mr. Pearson. I havn ; t any idea what effect it might have. It 
might be benficial. Of course, if it shuts off any of the cross current 
it would be beneficial. 

Mr. King. You are not in any way opposed to the building of this 
dike, are you ? 

Mr. Pearson. In no way whatever. 

Mr. King. With reference to the currents on the Amherstburg 
side, what have you to say as to that ? 

Mr. Pearson. Of course, I would not know anything about what 
effect that would have, or about what effect it might have on the 


142 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


current in the Livingstone Channel. It might shut the current off 
altogether. It might form an eddy there. 

Mr. King. Your position is that you would rather bear those ills 
you have rather than flee to others that you know not of ? 

Mr. Pearson. Yes. If I had my choice of the two channels, I 
would prefer the Amherstburg Channel because I know the currents 
there. 

Mr. King. You are not offering any opposition to the building of 
the proposed dike, are you ? 

Mr. Pearson. None whatever. If it makes the current less, so 
much the better for us. 

Mr. King. But the position you are taking is that it is not a neces¬ 
sity ? 

Mr. Pearson. It would not prevent me from going down provid¬ 
ing I had to go down. If we were obliged to take that channel it 
would not prevent me from going down, and I do not think there 
would be any danger. As to the convenience, the less current the 
better. 

Mr. King. With no adverse conditions to contend with last year 
after the dike was put in, and as long as you were not paying for the 
dike yourself, you would like to see it there ? 

Mr. Pearson. Yes; I would. I do not think we can have too 
many aids. 

Mr. White. What would be the effect of a dike on the west side 
of the channel as to the navigation in that channel ? 

Mr. Pearson. I should think it might shut off a portion of the 
current. Certainly the water would not flow straight across. It 
might go a portion of the way and then form an eddy, as currents do 
when they strike a dam. 

Mr. White. As to your handling a boat going down there; suppose 
a snowstorm should come up when you were in the channel ana you 
had a dike which appeared above the water there on the west side 
of the channel ? 

Mr. Pearson. It would be very nice to see. You can see it much 
easier than you could an object ahead. 

Mr. White. It would be hke a handrail in coming downstairs, I 
suppose ? 

Mr. Pearson. Very much on the same principle. 

Mr. White. You can pick up your dike at any time or at any 
point below ? 

Mr. Pearson. Yes; you ought to do that. 

Mr. White. But you could do that in a snowstorm when you 
would not be able to pick up lights ? 

Mr. Pearson. Certainly. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. JOHN WILLIAMS. 

Capt. John Williams, of the city of Toronto, Ontario, a witness pro¬ 
duced on behalf of the Dominion Marine Association, being duly 
sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. King: ♦ 

Mr. King. What steamer are you sailing ? 

Capt. Williams. The IF. D. Matthews . 

Mr. King. What company owns that steamer? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 143 

Capt. Williams. The St. Lawrence & Chicago Steam Navigation 
Co. of Toronto. 

Mr. King. What are her dimensions ? 

Capt. Williams. 375 feet long, 48 feet beam, and 28 feet depth. 

Mr. King. She is too long for the lower canal ? 

Capt. Williams. Oh, yes. 

Mr. King. Are there many Canadian boats, outside of the Emperor 
and Osier, that are longer than the Matthews? 

Capt. Williams. No. 

Mr. King. You ran the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Williams. Yes, on three different occasions. 

Mr. King. Had you any difficulty with these cross currents ? 

Capt. Williams. Not any. 

Mr. King. None. 

Capt. Williams. None. 

Mr. King. And you think that would fairly represent the views 
of masters navigating boats of 300 or 400 feet in length ? 

Capt. Williams. Well, I would think so. 

Mr. King. From your point of view, and with reference to a vessel 
of your tonnage, there is no need for a dike ? 

Capt. Williams. I should not think so, so far as my opinion goes. 

Mr. King. As to the current in the Amherstburg Channel, have 
you anything to say with reference to the addition to that current 
if a dike is built? 

Capt. Williams. I am of the opinion that it might give us a current 
we are not accustomed to finding down around the head of the island. 

Mr. King. You agree with everything that has been said with 
reference to the lighting of the Livingstone Channel? 

Capt. Williams. Yes; these lights are wrong altogether. 

Questioned by Mr. Hough: 

Mr. Hough. The construction of that dike, in your opinion, would 
cause a dangerous cross current at the head of the island from the 
Amherstburg Channel ? 

Capt. Williams. Well, I thought of it in that way. 

Mr. Hough. There is quite a strong current setting in to the east¬ 
ward at the head of the Limekiln Crossing now ? 

Capt. Williams. Yes, there is a certain amount of current. 

Mr. Hough. Just at the turn around the lightships? 

Capt. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. And a strong current sets in to the east there ? 

Capt. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Have you noticed the effect of that current on your 
boat as you passed? 

Capt. Williams. Oh, yes; but still we are used'to it and govern 
ourselves accordingly. 

Mr. Hough. That current is, I am informed, stronger than the 
current crossing Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Williams. I would not say that myself; I do not know 
whether it is or not. 

Mr. Hough. You told us that you did not have any trouble at all 
in the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Williams. The current did not bother me going down. 


144 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hough. You have noticed a current in the upper end of the 
Limekiln? 

Capt. Williams. Yes. 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland: 

Mr. Strickland. In your first trip through the Livingstone Channel 
had you warning of the currents ? 

Capt. Williams. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Strickland. And" you governed yourself accordingly ? 

Capt. Williams. Yes; I may say that in going down I went down 
very slow until I made the turn. I drove the vessel down into the 
current good and hard, and then checked her down, and when I was 
passing the lookout station they informed me of this set to the west¬ 
ward at the foot of the current, and as I got down to the foot I held 
the vessel over to the port hand side, and then I decided that there 
was no need for it. In the two trips I made afterwards I simply went 
down about my business, as I would go anywhere else. 

Mr. Strickland. Were these trips that you made in the daytime 
or in the nighttime ? 

Capt. Williams. In the daytime. % 

Mr. Strickland. And not at nighttime? 

Capt. Williams. And not at nighttime. 

Mr. King. Is the steamer Iroquois a steamer that can get through 
the Welland Canal? 

Capt. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. King. She is full canal size ? 

Capt. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. King. What water could you draw with the Matthews? 

Capt. Williams. We have been loaded to a draft of 19 feet. 

Mr. King. You could load deeper? 

Capt. Williams. Yes; we could load to 21 feet. 

Mr. King. May I put in a letter from another master, which I will 
read? It is perhaps not evidence, but it can go on file. It is written 
by the master of the steamer Iroquois , and I would like it to go on 
file as from the master of one of the canal draft steamers. 

Mr. Tawney. You can read it. 

Mr. King. The letter reads: 

Buffalo, November 21, 1912. 

Mr. A. A. Wright, 

Toronto , Ontario. 

Dear Sir: Your favor of the 19th instant to hand and contents noted, and in regards 
to Livingstone Channel would say I have been only through it once, and until this 
channel is better lighted I do not intend running it at night, as the lights are too far 
apart, and on leaving the cut you are carried to eastward with a strong cross current 
until you get abreast of Bois Blanc Island. Then I think it sets from the westward, 
but not so heavy, but of they would light it well and do away with them blinkers, so a 
man could have something to steady his vessel on, it would not be so bad; but blinkers 
are not worth anything where there is no range, but I would not advise putting a 
dam across there, as I am afraid we would feel it then in the eastern channel, but get 
after them on those blinkers, as they certainly are not worth a damn. 

Yours, truly, 


P. E. Robinson. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


145 


TESTIMONY OF CAPT. P. J. NICHOLSON. 

Capt. P. J. Nicholson, of the city of Windsor, a witness produced 
on behalf of the town of Amherstburg, duly sworn, deposed as 
follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Hough: 

Mr. Hough. What is your position, Captain? 

Capt. Nicholson. I am superintendent of the Windsor & Detroit 
Ferry Co. 

Mr. Hough. You are also a master mariner? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. For how many years? 

Capt. Nicholson. I have been master for 38 years. 

Mr. Hough. And before you took the position of superintendent 
of the ferry company you were commanding a large freighter? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. And you are familiar with the different channels in 
the neighborhood of the lower Detroit River ? 

Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Prior to coming to Windsor you lived in Amherstburg 
for many years ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, for 30 years. 

Mr. Hough. Have you ever been through the new Livingstone 
Channel? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Give us your experience. 

Capt. Nicholson. I went through there with the Britannia, the 
second boat down at the time the channel was opened. 

Mr. Hough. The Britannia is a large passenger boat? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. What capacity? 

Capt. Nicholson. Two thousand seven hundred passengers. We 
had 1,550 people on board that day, the board of commerce, and the 
Lake Carriers’ Association. 

Mr. Tawney. What are the dimensions of the Britannia ? 

Capt. Nicholson. One hundred and ninety-six feet long, 56 feet 
beam, and she has three decks. 

Mr. Hough. You followed the Livingstone down the day the 
Livingstone Channel was opened ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Were you in command of the boat? 

Capt. Nicholson. We had a captain on board; I had charge of the 
boat. 

Mr. Hough. What was your experience ? 

Capt. Nicholson. We followed into the Livingstone Channel, and 
after we got in a little way I had the master check her down, so that 
if anything should happen to the Livingstone, which was the first big 
boat through, that I would be in shape to stop. I did not want to 
be close on to her. The Livingstone went right on, and when we 
got down to the lower end we speeded up to half speed and we went 
straight on out. I stood and watched to see if there was any sag 
one way or the other. When we got down about the middle of Bois 
86342—13-10 


146 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Blanc Island, I walked around in front of the pilot house and the 
captain said to me: “This cross current, there is nothing to it.” 

Mr. Hough. Is that your opinion, too ? 

Capt. Nicholson. That was my opinion that day. Then I was 
there afterwards on the Hancock , the little Government boat, with 
the commission. We went down to the channel and came up again. 
Of course she was a short boat and she is liable to dodge around, and 
when she got up close to the dyke the current was strong, but I did 
not see any trouble, even in her coming up. She grounded, too, down 
below where the cross current was said to be so bad. 

Mr. Hough. That was the day the commission inspected the 
channel ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes; we passed a steamer that day in the 
channel going down to Amherstburg; she was going from Sandwich 
to Amherstburg. She went around the foot of the island and came 
up again. When we got into Amherstburg, after we got onto the 
Hancock, I asked the captain: “Why didn’t you go down and turn 
around?” and he said: “I dare not take the chances of the current 
in the Amherstburg Channel.” 

Mr. Hough. He took the Livingstone Channel rather than the 
Ajnherstburg Channel? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. What size is the Hancockf 

Capt. Nicholson. Three thousand five hundred tons; about 340 
feet long. 

Mr. Hough. With your knowledge of this channel, what is your 
idea as to the necessity of this dam for the purpose of offsetting the 
cross current? 

Capt. Nicholson. I can not see any. 

Mr. Hough. We have been told that the current in the Amherst¬ 
burg Channel crosses the Limekiln Crossing at about 2J miles an 
hour. How does that current run at the point where the channel 
makes a turn around the lightship? 

Capt. Nicholson. Well, it runs to the eastward; it runs across 
from the Canada shore. 

Mr. Hough. Is it a strong current? 

Capt. Nicholson. It was a good deal stronger before they opened 
the Livingstone Channel than it is now. 

Mr. Hough. But it is still strong? 

Capt. Nicholsln. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Setting in to the east of the channel at the upper 
Limekiln ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Is that, in your opinion, a stronger current than the 
one setting across the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Nicholson. I think so. 

Mr. Hough. Is that a more dangerous point, owing to the current, 
than any point in the Livingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Why, yes, because you come up there and make 
a bend right there. You head up to the Ballards Beef. The channel 
takes a turn of about 20 degrees there. 

Mr. Hough. If this dike were built, what, in your opinion, would 
be the result of the additional water going into, the Amherstburg 
Channel between Bois Blanc Island and the town of Amherstburg? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 147 

Capt. Nicholson. I think there would be perhaps one-half more 
water go down through that channel than does now. 

Mr. Tawney. Going down through what channel? 

Capt. Nicholson. The Amherstburg Channel between the island 
and the mainland in front of the town of Amherstburg. 

Mr. Hough. At what rate would it be sent into that channel as it 
followed the dike down ? * 

Capt. Nicholson. I do not suppose there would be a great deal 
more current at the head of Livingstone Channel down to the head of 
Bois Blanc Island than there is now, but if you narrow it down to a 
funnel, when you enter the Amherstburg Channel you would get a 
terrific current. 

Mr. Hough. What would happen to it when it left the dam around 
the head of the island ? 

Capt. Nicholson. It would whirl around as it does at the head of 
the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Hough. Would it hit the Amherstburg Channel again? 

Capt. Nicholson. Very likely. 

Mr. Hough. Would that be an injurious cross current, in your 
opinion ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Your line of boats, I understand, call at Amherstburg 
and then go on to this island park directly opposite? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, we stop at Amherstburg on the way down 
and then go down below and round to Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Hough. Would it be possible to stop bound down at Amherst¬ 
burg with this additional current ? 

Capt. Nicholson. I do not think it would. While the Livings- 
stone Channel was closed up and the dam across the upper end, we 
had just all the current we could handle and make our landing down 
there, and besides we had a good deal of damage done. If the current 
happened to catch our boat and make a stern landing the wrong way 
she either went into something ahead or into the dock, and a great 
many times we dare not land at Amherstburg at all if the wind was 
anyways down river. We generally had to go to Bois Blanc Island 
and have the passengers ferried over with a smaller boat. 

Mr. Hough. You had to make a turn and land head on? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Since the Livingstone Channel has been opened up, 
the current is a good deal easier down there ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. The current has not been so strong since the channel 
has been opened ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. It cost us a good deal of money to fix 
our docks up for the four years they had that closed up there. We 
had to put in a good deal of new work. 

Mr. Hough. If the Livingstone Channel is widened to the full 
width of 450 feet, the condition will be still further improved there ? 

Capt. Nicholson. It would. 

Mr. Hough. That is, without the dike. 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 0 

Mr. Hough. If it should be thought advisable to interrupt this 
cross current, can you suggest any better way of doing, it than by the 
dike proposed ? 


148 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Capt. Nicholson. Well, if it was left to me, I would put a straight 
wall down at the west side; dig out that 150 feet and make a straight 
wall down to the lake. That would be a guidance to the men that go 
down there, and it would help to straighten the current. 

Mr. Hough. That is, if it should be thought necessary to straighten 
it? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Have you anything further to say about that ? 

Capt. Nicholson. You go out of the Livingstone Channel now 
and you have nothing but these little blinkers. It is the fear of those 
blinkers that the men have more than anything else. 

Mr. Hough. As a matter of fact, it is like giving a dog a bad name. 
This channel had a bad name before it was opened ? 

Capt. Nicholson. It is the idea that the lights have not improved 
it anyway. 

Mr. Hough. And in your opinion some of these mariners are 
unnecessarily afraid of it ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Are you familiar with the ice conditions at Amherst- 
burg in the winter ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Oh, yes; I lived there for 30 years. 

Mr. Hough. Right on the river bank ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. It has been suggested that the ice is in a weakened 
condition when it gets to Amherstburg. 

Mr. Nicholson. Not always. 

Mr. Hough. Pretty hard ice passes down there ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes; before they built the Livingstone Channel 
and filled up the mouth of Stoney Island up to the eastward, a great 
deal of ice used to go to the westward of Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Hough. More went west than now ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes, but since they have built that so far up 
toward the Canadian side in the deep waters, they have forced the 
ice down Limekiln Crossing Channel. 

Mr. Hough. Do you mean to say there is more ice comes down 
the Limekiln Crossing now between the cofferdam and the main shore 
than formerly ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Closer along the bank; the current sets it over 
there and it goes down in the Amherstburg Channel. 

Mr. Hough. That ice divides now and part of it goes west of the 
island and part of it in front of the town ? 

Capt. Nicholson. There ain’t much of it divides unless it is wide 
enough so that the water has to shove it down; if it isn’t awful wide 
it will all come down the Amherstburg Channel. 

Mr. Hough. Will the ice conditions be made very much worse by 
the construction of the dam ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. It wifi increase the current in there and 
anything that won’t block across between the'head of the island and 
the main shore; if it goes down in there, it will carry everything 
with it. 

Mr. Hough. And practically % what ice comes down there will be 
sent through the Amherstburg Channel in front of the town ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes; they had a little run of ice this winter; it 
passed the island about 6 o’clock Saturday night, 6 inches deep; it 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


149 


was broke up and it went down there, and you know at Amherstjmrg 
it carried away lots of things; it carried away part of our abutment 
on the Bois Blanc Island dock and the cribwork we put in there 
last winter. 

Mr. Hough. That was sent in there by reason of the cofferdam ? 

Capt. Nicholson. It followed that channel right down and did 
not divide. 

Questioned by Mr. Strickland: 

Mr. Strickland. You have not been through the Livingstone 
Channel in command of a boat yourself ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Well, I was in charge of a boat; I was in the 
pilot house. 

Mr. Strickland. You did not handle her yourself ? 

Capt. Nicholson. No; the captain handled her inside the pilot 
house and I was standing outside. 

Mr. Strickland. You had warning about the currents ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Nothing more than I had heard before, but* I 
did not know what that big boat might do. I had 1,550 people on 
board my boat and I did not want to get down close to her. If her 
steering gear got out of order or anything of that kind, I wanted to 
be in shape so that I would not get into her; that is the reason I 
kept back. 

Mr. Strickland. Is there not quite a difference in handling a 
vessel of the character you were on and one of the large freighters ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Not a great deal. A longer boat in a current 
handles nicer than a short boat does. 

Mr. Strickland. As to the ice, is not that controlled by the wind ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Well, it is to a certain extent, but if there is no 
wind it goes down that way; it has to be blowing very hard from the 
eastward and then it will follow down by Grosse lie. If there is no 
wind to amount to anything, it follows the natural speed waters 
down. 

Mr. Strickland. Does not more of that go through the cofferdam 
than the channel? 

Capt. Nicholson. No; 300 feet does not let a very big cake of ice 
down and then it blocks up. 

Mr. Tawney. Your company operates these boats as excursion 
boats and passenger boats? 

Capt. Nicholson. Yes. 

Mr. Tawney. What is your route from Amherstburg up across to 
Detroit ? 

Capt. Nicholson. We go right down the east channel and come 
right back up that channel. 

Mr. Tawney. Do you cross? Are there any other lines that cross 
between the southeast corner of the cofferdam and the head of Bois 
Blanc Island ? 

Capt. Nicholson. No lines that I know of; there may be tugs and 
barges and the like of that, but there are no lines except the White 
Star. 

Mr. Strickland. Did you oppose the construction of the Living¬ 
stone Channel when it was first proposed ? 

Capt. Nicholson. Oh, yes; all the trouble in my mind is that the 
channel is not made wide enough; 300 feet is the channel we had 30 
years ago. 


150 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Livingstone. If you can navigate it with all the ease you 
speak of, what is the necessity for making it wider ? 

Capt. Nicholson. You take that length of a channel and if it was 
450 feet or 500 feet you would have more room if anything should 
happen. 

The witness was not further examined. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER E. CAMPBELL. 

Walter E. Campbell, of Detroit, a witness produced on behalf of 
the town of Amherst burg, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Hough : 

Mr. Hough. You are president of the Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co. ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Your company owns Bois Blanc Island? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. That is the island they want to hook a dam on to ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. You are a master mariner yourself? 

Mr. Campbell. I have been. 

Mr. Hough. You are familiar with the channels in the lower 
Detroit River ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes sir. 

Mr. Hough. Have you been through the Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. Just state what you noticed. 

Mr. Campbell. I went through the day the commission was there; 
I went through on the Hancock. 

Mr. Hough. Have you anything to say regarding the cross current ? 

Mr. Campbell. I did not notice any cross current, both going up 
and down, at that point. I was talking to the gentlemen most of the 
time, but observing also, and I did not notice any current. 

Mr. Tawney. Do you know of anybody on the boat who did? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not think so; I do not think there is much 
cross current there. 

Mr. Tawney. It was a pretty cold day. 

Mr. Campbell. I do not consider there is a cross current there; I 
have been on the island since then and observed hundreds of boats 
going down, and I have not heard any man say there was a cross 
current in that part of the channel to bother anybody. 

Mr. Hough. You remained on the deck of the Hancock all the 
time? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. You were not getting out of the weather in the cabin ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir; and most of the commissioners were up 
on the deck all the time too. 

Mr. Hough. What effect do you think this dike, if built, will have 
on the channel between the island and the town of Amherst burg ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think if you will reduce the channel from 2,000 
feet wide at the head to 1,000 feet you will get a much increased cur¬ 
rent. You may help one channel, but you will certainly spoil the 
other. 

Mr. Hough. It is improving the Livingstone Channel at the ex¬ 
pense of the Amherstburg Channel. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


151 


Mr. Campbell. I do not know that you will improve the Living¬ 
stone Channel if you leave a 300-foot opening there, because that 
will shoot across to the Livingstone Channel with greater force, 
confined to that space, than it would if it were all left open. There 
is an illustration right here in the city of Detroit. Every day in 
heavy rainstorms the sewers will belch forth their water 50 or 100 and 
150 feet outside the docks against the current from an 8 and 12 foot 
sewer. You can go down any day to the public lighting plant in 
Detroit and see the effect of the water going out in the Detroit River 
from their sewers; it will run out 100 feet. If you confine the dike 
to a 300-foot opening, it will make a much stronger current through 
that 300-foot opening and it will reach away over beyond the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel, and I think will ruin it. 

Mr. Hough. Confining a stream in a narrow channel has a some¬ 
what similar effect to putting a nozzle pn a hose ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; if you confine it, and you will give it much 
more force. 

Mr. Hough. What direction will the current take down this dam 
as far as the Amherstburg Channel is concerned—down the dam 
along the head of the island into the Amherstburg Channel—what 
direction will it take ? 

Mr. Campbell. The current will go to the eastward. 

Mr. Hough. You think it will go right across the Amherstburg 
Channel ? 

Mr. Campbell. In all probability it will go across and hit the 
Amherstburg dock, the same as it does at the Limekiln at the upper 
end. I am not prepared to state that, but I would naturally suppose 
where you confine a channel from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet, when it 
gets into that cone it is going to be a stronger current and it will 
raise the water. 

Mr. Hough. In your opinion, it will cause a current from the head 
of the island across the Amherstburg Channel to the Amherstburg 
dock? 

Mr. Campbell. If you confine the waters by a dike from the head 
of the island over to the Livingstone Channel, you have a great deal 
of water coming down river and you will confine it to a 1,000-foot 
channel, which is the Amherstburg Channel, and that will raise the 
water and make a largely increased flow and increased current, and 
possibly increased damage, at certain times of the year anyway. 

Mr. Hough. Will this have any other effect on your property or 
on the island ? 

Mr. Campbell. I can not tell you whether it would have the effect 
of eating away the head of the island, perhaps not, although I have 
prepared against that by building dikes outside with stone that came 
out of the river. 

Mr. Hough. That is along the side ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Would it have any effect on the navigation of your 
boat through the Livingstone Channel ? 

Mr. Campbell. That is what I am afraid of. I am afraid that if 
we had that increased amount of water going down the Amherstburg 
Channel, with the increased current, that it would be unlikely we 
could stop at Amherstburg down stream. It might be aU right, but 
in turning a large boat around in a narrow channel, which we have 


152 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


to do now, it may be difficult. We have a steamboat turn around 
in the channel and she is about the largest thing that can turn around, 
and with the increased current we might have to turn on the anchor 
or go below the island. Turning on the anchor could be done all 
right and it would not hurt anybody, but it would be very incon¬ 
venient. 

Mr. Tawney. In what respect would it affect navigation generally ? 

Mr. Campbell. In the increased current you would not be capable 
of handling your boat with the same degree of safety you do now. 
Lumber boats and tow boats coming on with tows would feel the effect 
of the increased current and would experience increased difficulties. 

Mr. Tawney. There has been no one representing the navigating 
interests on the Great Lakes except you who has claimed that this 
would affect the Amherstburg Channel so as to be a menace to naviga¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Campbell. I think it would affect the Amherstburg Channe- 
very much; I think it would spoil the Amherstburg Channel. I have 
had the opinion of quite a number of captains, talking to them. 
I have talked with a great many captains who sailed boats on the 
Great Lakes and have been down to the Livingstone Channel, and 
until I met Capt. Brown I failed to find one that had been bothered 
at all in going through the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Tawney. Would this dam affect your interest m the Bois 
Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Campbell. In dollars and cents do you mean ? 

Mr. Tawney. Yes. 

Mr. Campbell. Not a penny. It would naturally mar the beauty 
of the river, that is all, and as far as that is concerned it would affect 
the motor boats and pleasure boats. It would put something in 
there that is not necessary and is useless, and which can be done in 
other ways without affecting the beauty of the river at all. 

Mr. Tawney. What would be the height of the dam ? 

Mr. Campbell. It would certainly have to come to the top of the 
water and more, to be effective. 

Mr. Tawney. Have you places of amusement on the island where 
your boats carry the passengers to and fro ? 

Mr. Campbell. To a certain degree there are legitimate places of 
amusement there. 

Mr. Tawney. I was not questioning that at all. 

Mr. Campbell. They are not places like you find in the average park 
where they are out for your money and trying to get all they can. 
The amusements on our park are few and far between. The price 
is popular and the idea is to get as large a crowd down there as possi¬ 
ble. We don’t want to take a man’s money all in one day, we would 
rather get him eight or ten times than all at once, because in that 
way we would get more steamboat fare. 

Mr. Hough. How many people did you carry to the park last year ? 

Mr. Campbell. I never usually tell what business we do because 
you may be an assessor and raise my taxes; possibly three or four 
hundred thousand passengers go down to Bois Blanc Island in a year; 
at all events it is within a squirrel’s jump of that, something in that 
neighborhood; I can not tell you the exact number. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


15a 


TESTIMONY OF CAPT. FREDERICK TROTTER. 

Capt. Frederick Trotter, of Amherstburg, Ontario, witness pro¬ 
duced on behalf of the town of Amherstburg, being duly sworn, 
deposed as follows: 

Questioned by Mr. Hough : 

Mr. Hough. You are in the wrecking business ? 

Capt. Trotter. Tugging and wrecking. 

Mr. Hough. You were one of those who were disappointed in not 
finding some work to do the day the Livingstone Channel was opened ? 

Capt. Trotter. I expected a job but I did not get one. 

Mr. Hough. I am afraid the Livingstone Channel has been given 
a name which it does not deserve. What do you think about that ? 
Before you answer that, may I ask if you are familiar with the chan¬ 
nels in the lower Detroit River ? r 

Capt. Trotter. I worked in it off and on during the construction 
of that channel. 

Mr. Hough. You have been in the tugging and wrecking business 
for how long ? 

Capt. Trotter. Ten years. 

Mr. Hough. Your tugging station is at Amherstburg? 

Capt. Trotter. Headquarters at Amherstburg. 

Mr. Hough. Tell us what you think as to the cross current there 
that we have been talking about. 

Capt. Trotter. There is a cross current there, but so far it has 
caused no damage. 

Mr. Hough. Is there any reason why it should cause damage? 
If a boat is properly navigated by a man who knows the current is 
there, and knows how to avoid it, should there be any danger? 

Capt. Trotter. I have never handled a large boat through and 
I think that question would be answered by the captains of the 
large boats. 

Mr. Hough. In any case, I suppose you regret to say that no 
accidents of any kind have happened to assist you in your business ? 

Capt. Trotter. No accidents have happened there whatever. 

Mr. Hough. What is your opinion about the necessity of this dam 
so far as offsetting currents is concerned? 

Capt. Trotter. It would offset the current to a certain extent 
but the current apparently has done no harm, there has not been 
enough current to cause any trouble that helps me any. 

Mr. Hough. What is the current in the Amherstburg Channel at 
the head of the upper lightship, for instance? 

Capt. Trotter. At the Limekiln ? 

Mr. Hough. Yes. 

Capt. Trotter. It is about the swiftest current we have anywhere 
in the river; it is about as swift as you will find anywhere. 

Mr. Hough. On the chain of Lakes? 

Capt. Trotter. I would not say that, but in the Detroit River. 

Mr. Hough. Does it set in very strongly to the east there at the 
upper lightship ? 

Capt. Trotter. At the upper end of the crossing it sets in to the 
eastward. At the lower end it sets out to the westward. 


154 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Hough. If this dike were built what would be the effect of 
the current caused by it on the Amherstburg Channel at the head 
of the island ? 

Capt. Trotter. Well, that current which now sets to the west¬ 
ward, at the lower end of the crossing would naturally follow it 
down the channel more to the eastward. It would be filled to the 
eastward if it could not get out to the westward. 

Mr. Hough. Would that cross the Amherstburg Channel, in your 
opinion, Mr. Trotter? 

Capt. Trotter. It would come into the Amherstburg Channel; 
there is no other way for it to go. 

Mr. Hough. I mean into the east channel that is used by the 
boats ? 

Capt. Trotter. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Would it be strong enough to cross it and strike the 
Amherstburg dock ? 

Capt. Trotter. That is a question for an expert; I do not know. 

Mr. Livingstone. Did you ever tow any cribs through the Liv¬ 
ingstone Channel ? 

Capt. Trotter. I towed the four concrete cribs which are used 
in the channel as lighthouses. I tugged them from the head of the 
dam down and placed them where they now are standing on the 
sides of the channel. 

Mr. Strickland. Did you feel any current while towing these 
cribs ? 

Capt. Trotter. Yes, we felt all these currents; it was something 
we could not tow over 2 miles an hour. 

Mr. Strickland. They were cross currents ? 

Capt. Trotter. We would find currents crossways. 

Mr. Strickland. What did you do with these cribs in order to 
allow for the cross currents ? 

Capt. Trotter. I headed my tug in the opposite direction into 
the current, in the direction the current was coming from. 

Mr. Strickland. Did you not have to take very sharp turns to 
cross the channel ? 

Capt. Trotter. At times I did, because I was not making over 
2 miles an hour, or probably under that through the water. The 
current in that place is somewhere in that neighborhood. 

Mr. Strickland. And any other person towing in the channel may 
have the same experience ? 

Capt. Trotter. In slow towing, the slower you go the more you 
have to hit across. 

Mr. King. It was mentioned this morning that the steamer Ward 
Ames had got into trouble in the Livingstone Channel; did you ever 
hear of her having trouble in the channel? 

Capt. Trotter. I heard of her having trouble, but not in the 
channel. 

Mr. King. What date ? 

Capt. Trotter. I can not say. 

Mr. King. Last November? 

Capt. Trotter. Somewhere after the channel had been opened. 

Mr. King. Where was her trouble ? 

Capt. Trotter. I am not sure about the boats, but there was one 
boat reported as striking in the Livingstone Channel, and when it was 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


155 


sifted out it was found she struck on Ballards Keef above the channel. 
She went down to the channel, but the damage had been done above 
and she was supposed to be sinking as she entered the channel. 
Whether that was the Ward Ames or not I do not know. 

Mr. King. Have you heard of any other boat having trouble in the 
channel? 

Capt. Trotter. Any boats that strike in that neighborhood are 
reported to Mr. Dickson, the engineer in charge, and I asked Mr. 
Dickson this morning if any boats had hit in the Livingstone Channel, 
and nothing had been reported to him. He said that one boat had 
been reported to him, and that when he sifted it he found it did not 
hit in the channel. 

Mr. King. And with regard to the only report that was sifted it was 
found that the steamer had struck above the channel ? 

Capt. Trotter. Yes; he found out she had not been in the channel. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. JOHN J. BEMSTEAD. 

Capt. John J. Bemstead, oi the city of Detroit, a witness on behalf 
of the town of Amherstburg, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Mr. Hough. You are a master mariner, I believe ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. For how long ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Twenty-six years. 

Mr. Hough. You have resided in Detroit for that length of time? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. You are an American citizen? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. What is your boat ? 

Capt. Bemstead. The steamer Columbia . 

Mr. Hough. That is a large passenger boat? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. What is her carrying capacity? 

Capt. Bemstead. Three thousand three hundred and fifty pas¬ 
sengers. 

Mr. Hough. You rim between Detroit and Amherstburg and 
Island Park? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. You are familiar with the current there? 

Capt. Bemstead. Not in the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Hough. In the Amherstburg Channel ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. You are familiar with the situation in the locality ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hough. The Amherstburg current over the Limestone Cross¬ 
ing is now about miles ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Somewhere about that. 

Mr. Hough. What, in your opinion, will be the increase in current 
through the channel between the island and Amherstburg if the dam 
is constructed ? 

Capt. Bemstead. I think it would be fully one-third more. 

Mr. Hough. What effect will that have in handling boats in that 
Amherstburg Channel ? 


156 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Capt. Bemstead. It will have the effect, I think, to make it impos¬ 
sible to land at Amherstburg head down with our boats. 

Mr. Hough. If you can not land with your boat that way, you can 
not land with any other large boat? 

Capt. Bemstead. No. 

Mr. Hough. What do you think would be the course of the current 
diverted into the Amherstburg Channel by this dike ? 

Capt. Bemstead. I think it, would shape across the head of the 
island to Amherstburg. 

Mr. Hough. You think it would go right across the Amherstburg 
Channel ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Nearly. 

Mr. Hough. And cause a dangerous condition at that point ? 

Capt. Bemstead. It would to us; we land at Amherstburg, going 
down, head down. 

Mr. Hough. It would cause that danger for any boat the same as a 
cross current will anywhere ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Strickland. Which of the two channels would you prefer to 
navigate ? 

Capt. Bemstead. I have never been down the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Strickland. You have no experience of it ? 

Capt. Bemstead. I know nothing about it. 

Mr. Strickland. Is it not the habit of masters to head their boats 
against a current when landing ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Not a boat running light. A boat running with 
a tow, of course the cross current will take the tow out. 

Mr. Strickland. Are not the White Star boats landed head down 
against the stream in making their landings ? 

Capt. Bemstead. At Sugar Island. They are side-wheel boats and 
can do it much easier than a propeller. 

Mr. Strickland. Do they not do it in the river while the current is 
strong ? 

Capt. Bemstead. Yes; but they are side-wheel boats and you can 
handle them much easier than a screw boat. 

Mr. Strickland. Will a freighter ever land with her head with 
the stream ? 

Capt. Bemstead. I have never seen one. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. HODGETTS. 

Dr. Hodgetts, medical adviser to the public health committee of 
the commission on conservation of Canada, a witness produced on 
behalf of the town of Amherstburg, being duly sworn, deposed as 
follows: 

Mr. Hough. What is your official position ? 

Dr. Hodgetts. I am medical adviser to the public health commit¬ 
tee of the commission of conservation of Canada. 

Mr. Hough. Have you in the course of your duties considered the 
effect that the building of this proposed dike will have upon the water 
supply of the town of Amherstburg ? 

Dr. Hodgetts. Yes; I have. 

Mr. Hough. Will you give us your opinion on that subject? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


157 


Dr. Hodgetts. I know Amherstburg during the time I have been 
health officer in Ontario for the last 18 years. Amherstburg has 
always suffered more or less from typhoid fever, at times epidemic, 
no doubt due to the fact of the sins of commission on the part of the 
cities and towns higher up the river. Having gone over the ground 
since the Livingstone Channel was cut, I consider that with that dam 
placed in the position in which it is there will be an increased menace 
to the health of the citizens of Amherstburg. That is, that their 
water supply will receive a greater amount of contamination than is 
at present reaching it. 

It may just be possible that the dam placed in the position it is— 
I do not know, but I know that dams sometimes are placed there by 
engineers to prevent sludge reaching steamboat channels, and it may 
be just possible that that is placed there to keep the large amount of 
sludge which must come down that rfvser from the sewage of a city 
the size of Detroit and Windsor and other points along the river from 
reaching that steamboat channel. Therefore that sludge would be 
diverted by that dam to the Amherstburg side, and it must be of 
necessity. The very fact that your water supply is polluted at times, 
sometimes more and sometimes less, makes it a very difficult problem 
to treat your water supply when you are doping it by the modern 
method of hypochlorite; it becomes charged with sewage and you 
put in the dope to quiet the public mind and the bacteria. 

Mr. Staunton. Do they drink the water out of the river ? 

Dr. Hodgetts. Unfortunately this is one of the towns where they 
have to take the water supply from the river, a river into which sew¬ 
age comes from the American and Canadian sides, and yet, according 
to the Ontario law, Amherstburg to-day would really have to treat 
their sewage before depositing it in the river, and yet they are 
compelled to drink the water supply which is polluted with sewage 
up that river; that is one of the difficulties we have at that point. 

Mr. Hough. The reason why that danger will be increased is be¬ 
cause a greater quantity of this polluted water will be diverted in the 
direction of the Amherstburg intake pipe ? 

Dr. Hodgetts. Certainly. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you made any tests since this Livingstone 
Channel was created ? 

Dr. Hodgetts. I am not the officer to make a test. The Ontario 
Board of Health has made tests, and I believe there is an official here 
to testify. 

Mr. Strickland. You yourself have not made tests? 

Dr. Hodgetts. No; it is not in my department. 

TESTIMONY OF COL. PATRICK. 

Col. Patrick, of the United States Engineering Corps, a witness 
already examined in this case, was recalled: 

Mr. Casgrain. What is the general plan of construction of this 
dike, if there is any such at present ? 

Col. Patrick. There is no mention made anywhere of any specific 
plans or projects except that rock is to be dumped in the water and 
with a sufficiently wide space to allow this to assume its natural 
course. 

Mr. Casgrain. It would abut on Bois Blanc Island, of course? 


158 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Col. Patrick. It must necessarily abut on Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Casgrain. Under whose supervision would this work be carried 
out? 

Col. Patrick. Under the supervision of the officers in charge of my 
office. 

Mr. Casgrain. That is the Corps of Army Engineers ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Casgrain. Supposing it were necessary to repair this dike in 
future years, by whom and under whose supervision would that be 
done ? 

Col. Patrick. Of course in answering that question I am ignoring 
to a certain extent that part of this is in Canadian waters. I assume 
if the United States builds the dike the United States would be obli¬ 
gated to keep it in repair, and it would be done under the supervision 
under which it was built. 

Mr. Tawney. All that may be subject to future agreement between 
the two Governments with respect to repair and maintenance. 

Col. Patrick. Yes; as in the case of all works in boundary waters. 

Mr. Tawney. It is subject to an agreement made between the 
two countries. 

Col. Patrick. Yes; I was gauging what they will do in the future 
by what has been done in the past. 

Mr. Tawney. How much of the proposed dike would be in Cana¬ 
dian territory and how much in American territory ? 

Col. Patrick. As I stated yesterday, probably one-third would be 
in American and two-thirds in Canadian waters. 

Mr. Tawney. In this projected dike there is to be an opening of 
300 feet near the point of Bois Blanc Island. What is the object of 
having that opening ? 

Col. Patrick. One of the objections urged by Amherstburg, as I 
understand, was that a dike that was absolutely closed would pre¬ 
vent shipping in that vicinity from reaching conveniently the west 
side of Bois Blanc Island, and as the opening had no serious effects 
at all on navigation through Livingstone Channel, I said we will 
leave it open or part of it open through. It was meant to be a 
convenience for those people; that was all. 

(The commission adjourned at 5 o’clock in the afternoon to meet 
again at 10 o’clock to-morrow, Wednesday morning.) 


International Joint Commission, 

Detroit, Mich., February 19, 1918. 

The International Joint Commission resumed its inquiry into the 
reference re the Livingstone Channel at 10 o’clock this morning in 
the Federal courthouse, Detroit, Mich. 

Present: James A. Tawney, presiding; Th. Chase Casgrain, K. C.; 
Frank S. Streeter; Henry A. Powell, K. C.; Charles A. Magrath; 
George Turner. L. White Busbey and Lawrence J. Burpee, secre¬ 
taries. 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


159 


TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. PATTON. 

Edward J. Patton, a witness produced on behalf of the township of 
Morden, being duly sworn, deposed as follows: 

Mr. Hough. Whereabouts in the township of Morden do you live? 

Mr. Patton. Half a mile below the town. 

Mr. Hough. On the river front ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes; right across from Bois Blanc. 

Mr. Hough. How long have you lived there ? 

Mr. Patton. I have lived there since 1880. 

Mr. Hough. What has been the action of the water on the Morden 
shore just below Amherstburg ? 

Mr. Patton. At the time the water would be at its level, you may 
say, it had washed the bank to a great extent, so that the Government 
and the township of Morden also had to spend quite an amount of 
money. 

Mr. Hough. That is, the township of Morden joins the town of 
Amherstburg to the south ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes; about midway to Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Hough. These works have been constructed from time to 
time by the township and by the Government ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes. 

Mr. Tawney. Which Government ? 

Mr. Patton. The Dominion Government. 

Mr. Casgrain. You live below Amherstburg? 

Mr. Patton. Just half a mile below the town limits. 

Mr. Hough. What effect will additional waters being brought 
down that Amherstburg Channel have upon the Morden water front 
and on these works that have been constructed there ? 

Mr. Patton. It would have quite an effect on the banks should 
the current be increased or the water raised in any way; the washing 
of the boats would go right over the stonework that the Government 
and township have put down to prevent washing away of the banks. 

Mr. Hough. Have you noticed any of the ice conditions down 
there ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Have you ever seen the river running full of ice? 

Mr. Patton. Oh, yes; frequently. 

Mr. Hough. It is a very common occurrence in the spring and fall 
to have the river running full of ice ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. Have you ever seen the ice windrowed there ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes, a number of times; one time especially in 1911 
when the ferry company’s Britannia went through to Toledo, I under¬ 
stand, to relieve there, I was standing at my door and they were 
there from two to three hours getting through the windrows. 

Mr. Hough. They were two or three hours making so much head¬ 
way through the ice ? 

Mr. Patton. They could not break through 100 yards. They got 
through the windrows and they went on. 

Mr. Hough. These ice conditions would be made worse by divert¬ 
ing a larger portion of the water and flowing ice into that channel ? 

Mr. Patton. That is what we are afraid of. 


160 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Powell. How high above ordinary high water is that retain¬ 
ing wall ? 

Mr. Patton. In a great many places it is not more than 12 or 14 
inches. From what I can understand from those who put it there, it 
was put there to break the swells of the largest steamers that went 
by andprevent them washing against the bank. 

Mr. Tawney. Tell us, if you know, $vhat is the variation in the 
level of the Amherstburg Channel ? 

Mr. Patton. That I can not answer. 

Mr. Tawney. You have lived on the bank for a long time; have 
you high water at times, flood water, and so on ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes. 

Mr. Tawney. In these times how much is the rise ? 

Mr. Patton. I have seen it rise high enough to go across the road 
at Elliotts Point. 

Mr. Tawney. In feet; have you any measurement at Amherstburg 
to show what is the rise in feet ? 

Mr. Patton. That would be guesswork on my part because I 
never took the measurements of it, but I should think it raised as 
much as 3 feet. 

Mr. Powell. Is this field ice in large pieces or broken up ? 

Mr. Patton. Sometimes it will extend halfway across the river. 

Mr. Powell. Is it heavy ice, or what ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes; it is heavy ice; it is broken up and floats down. 
Sometimes it freezes together and forms larger cakes, just fields 
of ice. 

Mr. Hough. This variation in level of 3 feet that you speak of is 
caused by the wind coming from different directions ? 

Mr. Patton. Cross winds. 

Mr. Strickland. In what month was the boat you spoke of caught 
in the ice channel ? 

Mr. Patton. I have not the date and I can not tell you the month. 
It was the time that the Britannia and one of the smaller boats went 
to Toledo. Capt. Nicholson, I understand, was on board. 

Mr. Strickland. Was it not in one of the coldest winter months? 

Mr. Patton. That I can not say. 

Mr. Strickland. Do not the winds have considerable to do with 
the formation of ice in the channel ? 

Mr. Patton. I do not know about that; I suppose it would. 

Mr. Strickland. I mean with regard to the quantity of ice in the 
channel ? 

Mr. Patton. I live at the lower end of Bois Blanc; I am not speak¬ 
ing of the western channel at all. 

Mr. Strickland. Is not the erosion of the banks due almost 
entirely to the washing from the passing boats ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes; at high water. 

Mr. Strickland. Has not the opening of the Livingstone Channel 
lessened the number of boats passing by Amherstburg ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes; it has to a great extent. 

Mr. Strickland. Does not the retaining wall give protection from 
currents alone? 

Mr. Patton. Yes; if the water has not been raised. 

Mr. Strickland. The walls are high enough to take care of the 
currents that go through there ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


161 


Mr. Patton. I think they are. 

Mr. Strickland. Is not-the change in the water levels due to the 
storm conditions almost entirely ? 

Mr. Patton. That I can not say. I know that when the wind 
blows strong from the east the water rises, and when we have a west 
wind it is lower. 

Mr. Hough. This work does not consist of a regular wall, such as 
Mr. Strickland seems to understand; it is a lot of riprap, loose stone 
thrown along the shore ? 

Mr. Patton. Yes. 

Mr. Hough. What are the boats that cause the greatest swell and 
greatest damage ? 

Mr. Patton. It is according to the speed; the big side-wheelers. 

Mr. Hough. As I understand it, those big side-wheelers are not to 
take the Livingstone Channel but are to continue to go through the 
Amherstburg Channel; is that a fact. Col. Patrick? 

Col. Patrick. They have the privilege of going either way, if you 
mean a passenger boat. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. W. FRED. PARK. 

Dr. W. Fred. Park, mayor of Amherstburg, a witness produced on 
behalf of Amherstburg, being duly sworn, deposed: 

Mr. Hough. You are the mayor of Amherstburg? 

Dr. Park. I am. 

* Mr. Hough. You are also a practicing physician? 

Dr. Park. I am. 

Mr. Hough. For how many years ? 

Dr. Park. For about 30 years. 

Mr. Hough. Have you been medical health officer for a consider¬ 
able part of that time ? 

Dr. Park. In the surrounding townships and towns; I have been 
medical health officer for the different municipalities. ' 

Mr. Hough. Are you familiar with the pollution of waters and the 
water supply ? 

Dr. Park. Yes; as mayor over a period of years and as health 
officer I come practically in contact with the health conditions. 

Mr. Hough. What are the health conditions in the town of Am¬ 
herstburg ? 

Dr. Park. Probably the most important questions as far as health 
matters are concerned we have to deal with in the town are in con¬ 
nection with typhoid fever, which has over a number of years been 
directly traceable to the sewerage pollution of the Detroit River. 

Mr. Hough. What is the typhoid rate in Amherstburg as com¬ 
pared with the rate of the surrounding municipalities which do not 
take their supply from the river? I understand that part of the 
township Dif Anderson and Morden get their water supply from the 
river. 

Dr. Park. "The typhoid in that district is practically confined to 
the town of Amherstburg and the waterfront of the Detroit River. 
That is accounted for in this way: A great many of the people in the 
surrounding townships practically take their water supply directly 
from the river. They dig wells a short distance from the river, and 
86342—13-11 


162 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


the amount of filtration through the narrow bed of sand is not suffi¬ 
cient to eliminate all sorts of infections. I know, however, from my 
experience extending over 20 years, as a fact, that there is practically 
no typhoid attributable to wells which are bored wells, rock wells. 
There are practically no surface wells in either of these townships and 
practically no typhoid. 

Mr. Hough. Does Amherstburg treat its water in any scientific 
way ? 

Dr. Park. Yes. Amherstburg treats the water by the chlorination 
process, and with reference to that I may say that we found in storm 
conditions, when large quantities of vegetable matter are flowing in 
following storms, and when the water is muddy, we find that the 
system is not as efficient and that we have outbreaks of a few cases of 
typhoid following such conditions. The chlorination process seems 
to be producing good results when the water is clear. 

Mr. Hough. What effect will the construction of this dam have on 
the amount of pollution diverted toward the Amherstburg water 
supply ? 

Dr. Park. To a great extent. * I believe the dam will throw back 
practically all the water into our water supply, and being heavily laden 
with earthy matter there will be more or less precipitation practically 
on our intake pipe. There will be a sedimentation there, and I 
believe it will very much increase our typhoid rate, which is already 
very high in proportion to the typhoid rate that exists at Niagara, 
for example. 

Mr. Casgrain. A good deal has been said about the Canard RiveV. 
I would like you to describe that river. 

Dr. Park. The Canard River is a sluggish river which runs back 
into the heart of the county of Essex, muddy in character. A good 
deal of swamp land exists around about it. 

Mr. Tawney. What is the drainage area of the Canard River ? 

Dr. Park. I would suppose for drainage purposes probably 10 
miles. 

Mr. Hough. It is said to drain 100,000 acres. 

Mr. Casgrain. Is the population dense there ? There is quite a 
settlement on the Canard River itself. 

Dr. Park. It is nothing more than the average moderate^ thickly 
populated country district. The population of the township of 
Anderson is only 1,900. 

Mr. Tawney. How far above Amherstburg does the Canard River 
enter into the Detroit River ? 

Dr. Park. Something in the neighborhood of 5 miles. 

Mr. Powell. A couple of miles above the Limekiln Crossing ? 

Dr. Park. Probably or 3 miles. 

Mr. Tawney. Three miles above the entrance to the Livingstone 
Channel % 

Dr. Park. Yes. 

Mr. Casgrain. Is the water of the River Canard polluted ? 

Dr. Park. No. In my experience of over 20 years and being health 
officer of that township, there has been practically no cases of typhoid 
reported along that whole district over a number of years. 

Mr. Casgrain. If one of the effects of this dam is to bring the water 
of the River Canard down opposite the town of Amherstburg, it would 
not then pollute the water there ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


163 


Dr. Park. It is not for that reason. I do not dread it on that * 
account. I dread it because you are less capable of sterilizing any 
muddy water than you are of sterilizing water which is clear. I 
think it will be an added danger, that is all. 

Mr. Tawney. Is it not a fact that this river, emptying into the 
Detroit River, generally flows down the shore along the Canadian 
side past Amherstburg and does not get out into the middle of the 
Detroit River ? 

Dr. Park. Yes, it does. I have seen it myself crossing the head of 
Bois Blanc Island under certain conditions. ‘ There is no question but 
what a portion of River Canard water does pass between the head of 
Bois Blanc Island and the lower end of the dike. Under certain 
weather conditions, particularly east winds, it does follow along. We 
always in this neighborhood get an east wind before stormy weather 
and the wind from the east drives it toward the American shore. 

Mr. Powell. Will not two such streams run together for miles 
with a clear line of demarcation between them ? 

Dr. Park. There is no question but that under ordinaly circum¬ 
stances you can see the two channels clearly marked. You can see 
the muddy water flowing in the blue water of the river every day, but 
under storm conditions that water becomes practically a churned 
mass. 

Mr. Casgrain. You see that in the case of the Ottawa and St. 
Lawrence Rivers where they join; they run together for miles, and the 
same way with the-. 

Mr. Powell. And the same way with the Thompson and the 
Fraser. 

Dr. Park. At the Limekiln Crossing the water is so churned that 
it gets more deeply into the channel at that point. 

Mr. Powell. Are they not kept apart by the difference in density 
of the water; would not the tendency be for this muddy current to 
sink to the shore down on the Canadian side without entering into 
the great body of water under normal conditions? 

Dr. Park. Under normal conditions our water is absolutely clear 
and undisturbed. During the greater portion of the year our water is 
practically clear from turbidity; that is, there is no marked turbidity. 

Mr. Casgrain. You fear that the greater amount of injurious 
matter coming down will be deposited at the intake pipe ? 

Dr. Park. Yes; the intake pipe is just below where the dam is to be 
built. 

Mr. Casgrain. With a greater volume of water and current do you 
think you would suffer to the same extent ? 

Dr. Park. That is a matter for an expert to decide. I do not 
know that I am capable of giving a positive opinion on that. We 
think the condition exactly similar to the condition which exists at 
Niagara where large quantities of sewage are thrown in from Buffalo. 
We are in the position that if we were to follow the law of the Province 
in the matter, we would have to treat our sewage as we throw it into 
the river and still be compelled to tlrink sewage-polluted water from 
Detroit. 

Mr. Strickland. Whence comes the sewage in that part of the 
river that flows by the Amherstburg intake pipe ? 

Dr. Park. I think the whole river is in an infected condition. 

Mr. Strickland. Does not some of it come from Windsor ? 



164 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Dr. Park. It may possibly; most assuredly a portion of it does. 

Mr. Strickland. How far from the bank is the intake pipe at 
Amherstburg ? 

Dr. Park. The intake pipe extends something in the neighborhood 
of 80 feet, I think. It goes over the channel bank to the bed of the 
river and then extends a number of feet beyond the channel bank. 

Mr. Strickland. Don't you think the increased current would 
benefit in the matter of sewerage ? 

Dr. Park. It would simply bring larger quantities of sewage- 
polluted water at the intake pipe. 

Mr. Strickland. Would it not pass down more quickly ? 

Dr. Park. We pump under suction and we are bound to get it. 

Mr. Tawney. Are there any other rivers or cities on the Canadian 
side except the River Canard and Windsor that discharge sewage 
into the Detroit River on the Canadian side ? 

Dr. Park. Windsor, Walkerville, and Sandwich may be considered 
as one municipality. 

Mr. Tawney. What is the population? 

Dr. Park. The population of the three towns combined would be 
something in the neighborhood of 27,000 people. 

Mr. Tawney. Are there any other rivers except the Canard that 
discharge surface drainage or sewage into the Detroit River above 
Amherstburg ? 

Dr. Park. There are small ditches, such as Turkey Creek, and a 
few small ordinary drains, you may call them. 

Mr. Powell. You say it would bring down a larger amount of 
pollution past the intake pipe for the water system of Amherstburg; 
you do not mean that although it would bring a larger quantity of 
polluted matter it would increase the percentage of pollution in the 
water? 

Dr. Park. I do not think so. 

Mr. Powell. As you would take absolutely the same amount of 
water, it would make no difference to you ? 

Dr. Park. Maybe not. Our town is similar to all other towns. 
We are taking an increased supply of water as we are growing. 

Mr. Powell. The water would not be any more deleterious if they 
pumped the whole River Detroit past you than it is at present ? 

Dr. Park. Maybe not. 

Mr. Powell. That depends on the percentage of deleterious matter 
in the water ? 

Dr. Park. Yes. 

Mr. Powell. And that would not be increased by the increase of 
the current down your channel ? 

Dr. Park. I do not think so. 

Mr. Magrath. Do not they treat the sewage on the Canadian side ? 

Dr. Park. No. 

Mr. Magrath. What is the population of Detroit ? 

Dr. Park. Four hundred and fifty thousand or more. 

Mr. Magrath. Is the sewage treated in Detroit ? 

Dr. Park. No. 

Mr. Magrath. What is the distance from Detroit to Amherstburg ? 

Dr. Park. About 18 miles. 

Mr. Strickland. With the swifter current would there not be less 
sedimentation near your intake pipe ? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


165 


Dr. Park. The sedimentation would occur in that neighborhood, 
owing to the amount of dead water which would lie alongside of that 
dike. The effect of it would be to form a pocket, and you are 
throwing the whole of the Canard water into that pocket, and sedi¬ 
mentation would occur there rather than farther down, where there 
is a rapid current. 

Mr. Strickland. If the dike would increase the speed of the 
water, would it not carry off the sedimentation ? 

Dr. Park. I do not think it would increase the speed of the water 
in that pocket I have referred to. More or less of the sedimentation 
would occur in the pocket. 

Mr. Strickland. Would not that improve the condition? 

Dr. Park. I do not feel so; I can not see it. I believe that the 
amount of sedimentation which would occur here at the bottom of 
the river would gradually become, at the foot of the Livingstone 
Channel, a mass of gelatinous material which would act as a source 
of infection. 

Mr. Hough. As I take it, the more of this pollution you take 
down, the more you are exposed to contagion? 

Dr. Park. Most conclusively so. 

Mr. Hough. So that although it may be even diffused in the water, 
there is an additional amount of pollution brought there and an 
additional amount of danger; is that correct? 

Dr. Park. I would judge so. With Detroit an ever-growing city, 
the amount of typhoid is certainly going to be greater. For a num¬ 
ber of years we have been able to trace our typhoid—as soon as 
Detroit gets a number of cases of typhoid, it is only a short period 
afterwards until typhoid shows up in our own county; that is notice¬ 
able all the time. 

TESTIMONY OF F. A. DALLYN. 

F. A. Dallyn, engineer of the provincial board of health of Ontario, 
a witness produced on behalf of the town of Amherstburg, being duly 
sworn, deposed: 

Mr. Hough. Have you prepared a statement with reference to 
the matters under discussion? 

Mr. Dallyn. I have prepared a short statement for your con¬ 
venience. 

Mr. Hough. Perhaps it will simplify matters if you read it. 

Mr. Dallyn then read the following statement: 

Statement of F. A. Dallyn, Engineer of the Provincial Board of Health 

of Ontario. 

1. From bacteriological investigations conducted of the Detroit River water, I am of 
the opinion that the admixture of sewage has taken place before the Livingstone 
Channel is reached. 

2. An increase in the amount of water flowing past Amherstburg by diversion of the 
current crossing over Bois Blanc Island, would cause more Detroit sewage to flow past 
Amherstburg. 

3. The increased flow’ of sewage would unquestionably increase the infectivity of 
the source of water supply. The infectivity being entirely dependent upon the inter¬ 
mittent pressure of the specific organisms causing water-borne diseases, if more varieties 
of sewage pass—coming from more numerous infected zones—then the pathogenic 
organisms will be more frequently present, and the typhoid rate as well as the general 
death rate, due to disease from other water-borne infections, will increase in a much 
greater proportion than the proportional increase in the flow of sewage. 


166 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


4. The sludge discharge of combined sewers such as are used at Windsor, Walker, 
ville, and Sandwich is probably between 2 to 5 cubic yards per 1,000,000 gallons- 
The German figures are between 5 and 15 cubic yards for a somewhat stronger sewage. 
The per capita consumption of water in the Detroit River towns is probably between 
125 to 325 United States gallons per capita per day. The German figures show the 
consumption to be between 30 and 60 gallons per capita per day. 

5. The total sewage discharged per day into the Detroit River amounts to approxi¬ 
mately 135,000,000 gallons; Detroit, 120,000,000 gallons; Windsor, 10,000,000; Walk¬ 
er ville, 5,000,000 gallons. 

Roughly, 400 cubic yards per day—approximately 400 tons. 

This, I believe, is largely deposited in the area below Amherstburg. A proportion 
of this now flows past the town. The proposed diversion above Bois Blanc Island 
would increase the amount of sludge passing Amherstburg by a much greater per cent 
than the increase in flow, due to the fact that the change in the direction of velocity 
would be the controlling factor rather than the actual increase of flow. 

8. Gross particles held in suspension, due to the increased velocity, will augment 
the present bad condition of the Amherstburg source of water supply. 

7. It is not feasible by chlorination to add quantities of chlorine that will penetrate 
such gross particles (disintegrated faeces) which may frequently harbor pathogenic 
or disease-producing organisms. They increase the menace of typhoid and water-born 
infections. 

Mr. Tawney. How many samples of this water did you take in 
making the investigation ? 

Mr. Dallyn. There were possibly 80 samples. 

Mr. Powell. Was it pretty full of bugs ? 

Mr. Dallyn. The intestinal organisms were present in one crop, 
across Lighting Island pretty well from one shore to the other. My 
stuff was a surface sample and there is a little more mixture as you 
get down. 

Mr. Powell. Do mean from mainland to mainland, when you say 
from one shore to the other ? 

Mr. Dallyn. Yes; the boat could not probably get within 500 
feet of either shore. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you studied the currents in the several 
channels sufficiently to satisfy yourself where the major portion of 
the Detroit sewage goes ? 

Mr. Dallyn. Only from the bacterial counts; that shows pretty 
well where the pollution exists. 

Mr. Strickland. Have you given consideration to the fact that 
with the dam in place there would be less water going over the Lime¬ 
kiln Crossing, with the dam in place between the cofferdam and Bois 
Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Dallyn. I understand from your Engineers’ report that there 
would be more. 

Mr. Strickland. Not over the top. 

Mr. Dallyn. I understand the level would be raised, which would 
necessarily mean that there would be more water. 

Mr. Strickland. You understand there would be more water 
going over the Limekiln Crossing with the dam there ? 

Mr. Dallyn. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. And your understanding is that it is not a 
reversal of that position ? 

Mr. Dallyn. Yes. 

Mr. Strickland. Where is the Limekiln Crossing located ? 

Mr. Dallyn. I understand it is pretty well in the lower part of the 
channel where the cofferdam was. 

Mr. Strickland. Is it down at the foot of the cofferdam or at the 
ead of it. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


167 


Mr. Dallyn. I understood it was just about the foot of it. 

Mr. Strickland. If that was the fact, by placing a dam in there, 
if there would be less water going over the Limekiln Crossing, would 
that change your opinion ? 

Mr. Hough. It seems to me that question is hardly fair. 

Mr. Dallyn. I can not understand it. 

Mr. Hough. The point is whether there is more or less water going 
through Amherstburg Channel opposite Amherstburg which will affect 
our water supply. The engineers all admit that more water will go 
through that channel than is going through it now. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN AMYOT. 

Dr. John Amyot, director of the laboratory of the provincial board 
of health of Ontario, a witness produced on behalf of the town of 
Amherstburg, being duly sworn, deposed: 

Mr. Hough. What is your official position? 

Dr. Amyot. Director of the laboratory of the provincial board of 
health of Ontario. 

Mr. Hough. Are you familiar with the local water-supply condi¬ 
tions around Amherstburg ? 

Dr. Amyot. In a general way only as to the pollution of the river. 
On several occasions we have examined the water supplies in our 
laboratory, selected at Amherstburg from their water supply, and we 
have frequently found it with organisms of the intestinal organs. 

Mr. Hough. What is you opinion as to the effect of diverting a 
larger supply of sewage-polluted water into the channel from which 
the water supply of Amherstburg woidd be taken ? 

Dr. Amyot. It would increase the chances of keeping up infection, 
because the infecton is not always uniformly distributed through 
this water. 

Mr. Hough. The more water that is diverted, the more the chances 
are increased ? 

Dr. Amyot. When both waters are of the same class, yes. It is 
not, I believe a question of more pollution; it is just simply diverting 
a quantity of water from another portion of the river—the same 
water—and there will be more links in the chain of danger. Typhoid 
has a much higher rate along these rivers than it has back in the 
country. 

memorial from residents of amherstburg and vicinity. 

Mr. Hough. There was a memorial presented to the commission at 
Amherstburg signed by residents of the county of Essex and the 
township of Malden and of the township of Anderdon and by several 
hundred residents of the town of Amherstburg. I think that memorial 
was filed with the Canadian secretary of the commission. 

Mr. Tawney. I wish to suggest that if you want it in this record, 
you sign it and have it received and marked. 

Mr. Hough. Very well. 

Mr. Casgrain. Somebodv said that this memorial was signed to a 
great extent by school children and that it was not a bona fide memo¬ 
rial; is that true ? 

Mr. Hough. I think the children in the senior classes of the public 
schools were asked to sign it. There were quite a number of them. 


168 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Irrespective of that the petition was signed by between 1,000 and 
1,200 altogether, and there are only 200 pupils in that school in any 
event. So that I do not think it would be very material whether it 
was signed by them in any event. The petition was signed very gen¬ 
erally and very largely and by very influential people of the town of 
Amherstburg and vicinity. With your permission I will file a copy. 
(Copy filed.) 

To the Chairman and Members of the Joint Commission: 

The petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Amherstburg and townships 
of Anderdon and Malden humbly showeth: 

Whereas it has been proposed to construct a dam from the south end of the east 
spoils pile of the Stoney Island Dry Cut, in the Detroit River, to the head of Bois 
Blanc Island, opposite the town of Amherstburg, with a view of controlling cross 
currents, which might otherwise affect the navigation of the new Livingstone Channel 
and of maintaining the water level. 

And whereas your petitioners believe that the construction of the proposed dam 
would, by diverting a large body of water into the narrow channel between the town 
of Amherstburg and Bois Blanc Island, increase the current at this point to such an 
extent as to render the harbor at Amherstburg practically useless; and ice brought 
down by such increased current would destroy the docks and other properties along 
the river front, and would render the navigation of vessels through the channel most 
difficult and dangerous, particularly in the case of steamers with tow. 

And whereas the Detroit & Windsor Ferry Co., who carry to Amherstburg and 
Bois Blanc upward of 300,000 passengers annually, in addition to other passenger and 
freight traffic, and the marine fueling and wrecking interests at this town, are all 
obliged to use the Canadian Channel exclusively; 

And whereas the residents of Amherstburg believe that the construction of the 
proposed dam to the head of Bois Blanc Island will prevent the sewerage from up-river 
points and the drainage of the River Canard, which enters the Detroit River about 4 
miles above Amherstburg, from following its natural course, which is in part at least 
to the west of Bois Blanc, and will instead divert it through the Canadian Channel 
and to the intake of the town waterworks plant, thereby endangering the health of the 
population of the three municipalities which obtain their water supply therefrom; 

And whereas this said flow of sewerage and drainage is assuredly diverted from the 
Canadian Channel aforesaid at such winter seasons when a windrow of ice forms from 
the head of Bois Blanc Island northeastward across said channel to the main shore 
above the town, which windrow sometimes packs practically solid to the bottom of the 
river; 

And whereas notwithstanding the numerous excavations made in the Detroit 
River from time to time since 1872, which have increased the depth of water through 
the Canadian Channel from 12 to 13 feet at that time to 23 feet for a width of 600 feet, 
there has not been any apparent lowering of the water level, but on the contrary since 
these excavations of the channel the water levels have been higher than for several 
years prior thereto; 

And whereas the opening of the new Livingstone Channel has not perceptibly 
lowered the stage of the water above. 

And whereas the work of enlarging the new Livingstone Channel to a uniform width 
of 450 feet throughout its entire length is only partially completed, your petitioners 
humbly pray that no action be taken with respect to the proposed dam which will 
permanently destroy the scenic beauty of this locality and work irreparable injury 
to the town of Amherstburg until the work shall have been completed and its effect 
on the water levels and the current positively ascertained. 

And your petitioners will ever pray. 

W. Fred Park, M. B., 

Mayor of Amherstburg. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPT. BROWN. 

Capt. Brown recalled. 

Mr. Strickland. I think the chairman of the commission asked 
last night if Mr. Brown were present. He is here now. 

Mr. Tawney. I want to say to Capt. Brown that I learned that 
there was a meeting of quite a number of masters at St. Clair and that 
they had drawn up a form of plan, and after consulting with the 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


169 


members of the commission, the commission is unanimous in saying 
that Capt. Brown should have an opportunity of submitting that 
proposition. As I understand it is in typewritten form. If the cap¬ 
tain desires to go now, he has an opportunity. 

Please state the circumstances under which this statement was 
prepared so that the commission may know what importance to 
attach to it. 

Capt. Brown. On receiving a request from Mr. Livingston to 
attend this meeting of the commission I at once called a meeting of 
20 of our most representative masters on the St. Clair River, in 
St. Clair. We talked over the situation at the lower end of the river, 
pro and con, and talked it over pretty thoroughly, and we all decided 
on a plan that might be adopted down there, and which might over¬ 
come a good many of the difficulties arising on both sides of the river. 
They requested me to put it in typewriting, and if it was necessary and 
asked for, to present it to the commission. I have that statement here. 

Mr. Tawney. Will you please read it ? 

Capt. Brown read the statement as follows: 


To the International Joint Commission on Improvements on the Detroit River. 

Gentlemen: After being invited by Mr. Livingstone to attend your meeting, I at 
once called a meeting of a number of our representative masters, all of whom have 
had wide experience m contending with the cross currents at the Limekiln Crossing. 

I consider the judgment of these men worthy of your consideration, as most of them 
not only had their early training in tugboats, when it was no unusual occurrence to 
tow six or eight vessels from Lake Huron to Lake Erie, but they have had experience 
that comes from navigating our largest freighters. 

I would, therefore, submit for your consideration the combined judgment of these 
masters, as follows: 

That a dam or dike be built, commencing at the south end of the east dike and 
extend south to a point 3,000 feet, or thereabouts, south of the north end of Bois 
Blanc Island. This would possibly meet the objection of the Canadian Govern¬ 
ment and at the same time prevent the strong current crossing the channel at the 
north end of the island, as it would then be conducted south along the dike an 
between the dike and the island. 

It was also strongly suggested that the north end of the channel be straightened 
from the first gas buoy north of the present turning buoy to the north end of the west 
pier or dyke, as great difficulty is experienced in getting our largest tows into the 
channel because of the cross currents drifting our ships to the westward in the Bal- 
lards reef channel. There is likely to be trouble at this point sooner or later, if a 
better entrance at the north end is not provided. 

Yours, truly, 

W. C. Brown. 

St. Clair, Mich., February 17, 1913. 


Mr. Tawney. State the number of masters that gave consideration 
to this question at this meeting. Do you know if any of the gentle¬ 
men who attended the meeting to consider these plans were practical 
engineers % 

Capt. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Tawney. Have the plans been considered or submitted to any 
engineer ? 

Capt. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Tawney. From an engineering standpoint you have nothing to 
say with regard to the efficiency of this plan % 

Capt. Brown. Nothing whatever. 

Mr. Tawney. You expressed simply your judgment as mariners of 
this plan being sufficient to prevent the danger at present existing in 
consequence of the cross current ? 

Capt. Brown. Yes, sir; we think it is absolutely sufficient. 


ARGUMENT IN THE CASE 


Mr. Tawney. If there is nothing further to offer in the way of evi¬ 
dence in the case, the commission would be very glad to hear the 
argument of the gentlemen representing the different Governments 
and the various interests. Before you proceed, perhaps it might be 
well to consider the time that would be required as to a decision on 
the points involved. Before we proceed there is one matter that 
some of the members of the commission suggest I might inquire 
about from Col. Patrick, and that is the urgency, in the judgment of 
the engineers' office in charge of the Detroit River, the urgency of a 
final decision in this matter 

Col. Patrick. I see no grave urgency for an immediate decision. 
No reasonable delay, to suit the convenience of the commission, 
would have any bad effect whatever. There is no reason for the com¬ 
mission hurrying their decision. 

Mr. Casgrain. We understood that we should, if possible, give a 
decision before the opening of navigation, so as to allow you to proceed 
this season if the work should be allowed. That is the reason why 
instead of holding our meeting at Washington on the 1st of April, 
according to our rule, we held a meeting here on the 17th of February. 

Col. Patrick. That question was asked me in Washington, and I 
answered in this way: That I could do nothing before the opening of 
navigation; that a delay until this time would not affect me. I 
assume that your decision would be rendered about the opening of 
navigation. I am asked now if I assume that your decision would be 
rendered about that time. Now the question is asked me whether any 
further delay will hurt anything, and I simply say I do not believe it 
will. 

Mr. Tawney. To put the matter in concrete form: I understand 
it will take some little time to prepare the transcript of the record for 
the use of the commission, and the regular sessions of the committee 
will be held at Washington on the 1st of April. Of course, the mem¬ 
bers of the commission will want to consider the record for some few 
days before that meeting, so as to give their final decision. The 
question in my mind was whether the delay until the regular session 
of the commission on the 1st of April wili be of any serious incon¬ 
venience in the event of the commission deciding to recommend the 
improvements. 

Col. Patrick. Whichever way the commission decides, I can not see 
that that delay will make any difference. 

ARGUMENT OF MR. FRANCIS KING. 

(At the request of Mr. King, counsel for the Dominion Marine 
Association, who stated that he had to take a train for the West in 
order to represent his clients in another proceeding, the commission 
170 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 171 

accorded Mr. King the privilege of speaking before counsel represent¬ 
ing the United States and the Dominion of Canada. 

Mr. King (for the Dominion Marine Association). Gentlemen of the 
International Joint Commission, quite enough has been said in the 
course of the examination of witnesses to indicate clearly that the 
shipping interests of Canada are by no means urgently desirous of 
the proposed dike built in the Detroit River; but there has not been 
enough said, by any means, to indicate clearly the attitude of the inter¬ 
ests I represent. I would like to say first that they are not approach¬ 
ing the question, and I wish heartily that I shall not approach the 
question, in any spirit of prejudice or opposition to the improvement 
of navigation m the Detroit River. We appreciate very keenly the 
enormous expenditure for the benefit of navigation in the Detroit 
River—expenditures made very largely by the Government of the 
United States. It would be the height of presumption on my part, 
and I may say on the part of the interests I represent, to advocate 
too strongly a view in opposition to the proposed improvements 
designed by the corps of engineering experts now engaged on behalf 
of the United States Government and approved to some extent by 
the vastly superior tonnage of the United States. 

I say that such a position would be infinitely more foolish on my 
part, having regard to the fact that while our fleet in Canada is now 
comparatively small, we hope and we are sure that in the course 
of a few yearn to come it will be very much larger than it is now and 
will compete on a much more equal basis with the fleet of the United 
States. We have not y r et had in Canada the development of such an 
enormous trade as that traffic in coal up and ore and grain down, 
which is enjoyed by the vessels of the United States. But it is coming. 
I have only to say that in the years between 1890 and 1900, the 
Canadian Fleet of freight carrying vessels jnultiplied its capacity 
exactly tenfold, and that it has continued to grow steadily since. 
I mention that to show' that I appreciate fully the idea that I must 
speak for the Canadian Fleet of the future as well as for the fleet of 
the present. Any shortsighted policy w'ould be extremely foolish 
in view of that fact. 

The position is simply this: That the Dominion Marine Association 
for which I speak is heartily in favor of any improvements that can 
be made in the navigation system of the Great Lakes, when it is 
made at the proper time and in the proper place. 

To analyze for a minute the evidence presented before this com¬ 
mission, let us see the reasons wdiich are suggested by the engineers 
who have spoken on both sides as to why this proposed dike should 
be built in the Detroit River or should not be built. In the first 
place, the cross currents below the upper end of the Livingstone 
Channel are referred to as a menace to navigation, and, in the second 
place, it is suggested that compensation should be made for those 
deteriorations in water level. 

I would ask the commission to distinguish very clearly between 
these two arguments, and to accept, if possible, the view*- which I 
advance, namely, that they can not be considered together. Col. 
Patrick differs from Mr. Stewart to some extent as to the amount 
of deterioration at the present time. I think Mr. Stewart places 
it at about 1.3 inches and Col. Patrick, on the other hand, stated it 
was practically a negligible quantity. I understand that Col. 


172 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Patrick is allowing for the dumping in the river of the rock which 
was excavated from the upper part of the cut and from the lower 
part also. I would take Col. Patrick’s statement as one which 
might fairly be accepted under the circumstances, and that at present 
the amount of compensation necessary is a negligible quantity, and 
that at present the argument is one with reference to the cross 
current. On the other hand, if compensation be made, it is to be 
made after the Livingstone cut is brought to 450 feet. What is 
the evidence regarding the cross current ? The masters of three or 
four vessels of the American Fleet in giving evidence have stated 
that they have suffered the effects of the cross currents and nobody 
wishes to contradict that. Those men, however, have admitted 
without hesitation to the court that their chief difficulty was on the 
first trip down, and that having learned the travails which beset 
them, they have devised schemes to overcome them, and that while 
there is danger—and there is far more evidence of danger on their 
part than is on the part of those who represent the Canadian Fleet— 
still it is a danger which can be overcome. On the other hand, the 
masters of the largest vessels we have in the Canadian Fleet, give 
the same evidence that there is a cross current, but that it is not one 
which they fear. 

Mr. Streeter. I did not catch your last statement. 

Mr. King. I said that the masters of the Canadian Fleet have given 
evidence that there is a cross current, but it is not one which they 
fear as a menace to navigation. They have felt it, they say, on the 
first trip, but on the first trip, with the warning in view, they have 
succeeded in overcoming the difficulty, and on the second trip there 
was no trouble. The master of our largest boat tells us clearly, and 
I think it is really our attitude, that a dike there, having regard 
merely to the cross current, would be desirable to increase the safety 
of navigation and to atoid the necessity for efforts to overcome the 
cross current, but that it is not a necessity and that he does not desire 
it from that point of view or consider it by any means one which must 
be built to protect navigation. If that is the attitude with reference 
to the cross current; if it is one that can be safely faced by mariners 
who are perhaps best able to tell this commission the effect of the 
cross current; supposing it is decided in the course of time to broaden 
the channel to 450 feet, it seems to be pretty well the tenor of the evi¬ 
dence that with that broader channel in the lower part of the Living¬ 
stone cut, the current will be very much less a menace to navigation, 
and the commission might safely come to the conclusion that the 
fleets of both countries could navigate down there without any serious 
difficulty more than such difficulties as they contend with throughout 
the whole stretch of navigation. 

Mr. Tawney. In that event compensation works would be neces¬ 
sary ? 

Mr. King. Exactly. But in that event we are to deal with the 
question of compensation and we to some extent eliminate from the 
discussion the question of the cross currents. Now, as to compen¬ 
sation: At present Col. Patrick says that the necessity for compen¬ 
sation is a negligible quantity; there is so little depreciation. But 
he and Mr. Stewart seemed to agree that in the event of the broad¬ 
ening of the cut to 450 feet, compensation may be necessary to make 
up—I think Mr. Stewart’s figures were—1.9 inches, and I think 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


173 


Col. Patrick’s figures are closely allied with that. So that the con¬ 
dition to be considered from my point of view really is the necessity 
for compensating 1.9 inches of depreciation in level in the event of 
the broadening of the Livingstone cut to 450 feet. If that is the 
question which is before the commission, I submit respectfully that 
perhaps the present moment is not the time to come to a definite 
conclusion on that point. I say that without having had opportunity 
to consult with my learned friends, representing .the Government of 
Canada, or the Province of Ontario. I have spoken to them only 
since I have decided upon the course of the case which I would present, 
and I have found them to be in accord with the position that had 
already been arrived at by my clients; that is, that they are not 
concerned with the compensation at the present time. There are 
two reasons: One is that their carrying draft is limited at present 
in their trade by the draft available at the locks in the Sault River. 
Their down-bound draft is 5 or 6 inches more than the up-bound draft. 
Last year, and in 1911, the large boats of the American fleet were 
using the Canadian locks so as to take advantage of that, so as to get 
all the available draft on the down-bound ships when they could get 
into the locks, and therefore the water on the Limekiln Crossing is 
not a factor, and 2 inches there at present will, under normal condi¬ 
tions, make no difference to us. I do not want to announce any 
shortsighted policy and say that I do not care what the level is in the 
Detroit River. 

The time will come, and I hope shortly, when we will need all the 
water there. The time has not quite come yet, and at present, with 
the exception of these ships which on the Canadian side may run up into 
the Georgian Bay, and there are not a great many of them, and on 
the American side into Lake Michigan, without having to go into 
Lake Superior, their capacity is determined by the available draft 
in St. Marys River. But that is not the only reason—the Dominion 
Marine Association is just as keenly interested as the Lake Carriers’ 
Association in the fight against the diversion of waters at Chicago. 
That is a matter that may in time come before this honorable com¬ 
mission; I do not know. At present there is apparently a dispute 
between the Federal and State authorities as to whether permission 
given by the Federal authority shall be strictly obeyed or whether 
authority given by the State legislature shall govern. I do not 
know very much about the merits of that question, but we are keenly 
and deeply interested in seeing if possible a decision which will 
prevent Chicago from diverting more water than they have already 
acquired the right to divert and preventing if possible the establish¬ 
ment of a precedent with regard to diversion in other quarters. We 
feel that if that question is still in the air and not decided, if it may 
result that more water will be diverted, or if it may result that what 
is now taken improperly will be put back or made up for in some 
other way, then possibly the compensating work here may or may 
hot be necessary, might or might not have to be changed or altered 
in some way, and might or might not be a little benefit to navigation. 

More than that, and I must express myself freely on the point, I 
fear—I merely express my own view, but I know it is shared by a 
number of men in the association I am speaking for—I fear that 
compensating works at the present stage would so alter the conditions 


174 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


that possibly our argument in connection with the Chicago Drainage 
Canal would be considerably weakened. Data would be destroyed, 
a new basis for argument must be found, and when we have talked 
about 1 inch here and half an inch there in our argument with regard 
to the Chicago matter we will have to begin all over again. I would 
like to have it understood by the commission that an honest effort 
has been made by the shipping interests in Canada to find out how 
far their masters are concerned in this question. They have suffered 
in having had only the month of November to find out the truth 
about the situation in the Livingstone Channel, and they would like 
a season in which to find it out. The investigation that has been 
made by the interests I represent has led to no protest whatever 
against the cross current. One master only has gone so far as to say 
that he would like to see a dike there in order to assist him through, 
and that was Capt. Pearson, of our largest steamer, but even he said 
that it was not a necessity, but would be a convenience. From all 
the other boats, from all the canal size steamers which go as far as 
Montreal, there has been unanimity of opinion expressed that they 
do not care about the cross current at present. Now there is the 
situation. I am saying nothing about the disadvantages; gentle¬ 
men from Amherstburg, gentlemen concerned with the flow of ice 
and flow of sewage, the men who have local interests of navigation 
in the Amherstbuig Channel, will have a good deal to say about that, 
but we appreciate fully the force of eveiy one of these arguments set 
before the commission. 

The question arises as to whether a 300-foot opening in the center 
of the dike is going to be navigable or not, and there is fear on the 
part of our marine association that there may be a sufficient amount 
of current forced through there to interfere to some extent down 
below. It is a question whether the White Star steamers will be 
able to pass through that. The disadvantages are such that when 
one weighs them with the possible intangible unsettled advantages 
one is simply forced to the position which one of the captains yester¬ 
day very aptly expressed in saying that he would rather fight the 
devil he knew than the devil he did not know, or, putting it in the 
words of Hamlet, we would rather bear the ills we have than fly to 
others that we know not of. One word in conclusion; I do not want 
to attempt to advise the commission against an improvement in 
navigation, but if the commission in its judgment comes to the con¬ 
clusion that it would be better in the interests of navigation as a 
whole—giving all consideration to the preponderating interest at 
present of the United States tonnage, although we are practically 
traveling in the same boat—then we will not be so terribly concerned 
by the opinion we have expressed now, not having been accepted by 
the commission. We wish improvement to navigation, but we would 
prefer to have it after a little further consideration and after a further 
opportunity to find out whether it is necessary. 

Mr. Tawney. In view of the statements you have made, in the 
event that the commission should decide to recommend this improve¬ 
ment to the two Governments, would the attitude of the interests 
you represent be then one of hostility to the Government of Canada 
accepting our opinion? 

Mr. King. In answering that question I really can not attempt 
to commit the interests I represent without further consultation. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


175 


I am asked to express a view here; I may in the course of the coming 
season be instructed that there is this or that possible element com¬ 
ing into the case which is not at present apparent,, and I do not 
like to say that the association I represent would not feel them¬ 
selves free or bound to discuss the matter further with the Cana¬ 
dian Government. I think you will appreciate that I am fair in 
making that statement. 

Mr. Tawney. I do not know how strong the opposition of the 
interests or of the movement would be; I do not know whether it 
would go to the extent of even opposing acceptance of the recom¬ 
mendation of the commission. 

Mr. King. I am quite frank about that. The attitude which we 
take—and when I say we I mean an association which comprises 
in its membership the vessels engaged in the through traffic from 
Montreal to Fort William, up and down the Lakes, and excluding 
some of the local interests which are not members of the association— 
the attitude that we take is not one of opposition to the scheme 
so much as of expressing a desire to have the improvement stand 
in abeyance for some time until we know something more about it. 

Mr. Powell. That is, that the question should be considered 
per se as an integral part of the broader question, and that all the 
factors should be taken into consideration. 

Mr. King. Exactly. We look at it from a broad point of view; 
a broader point of view than merely cutting off the cross current 
and enabling our boats to go down that part of the channel a little 
more easily than at present. 

Mr. Powell. Then the shipping association offers no opinion on 
the merits of the present application ? 

Mr. King. Except as I have stated. 

Mr. Powell. That is, that it is involved in the larger scheme and 
should be treated as a whole. 

Mr. King. That is one element, and the other, that the commis¬ 
sion should weigh the apparent disadvantages named to-day with 
the advantages suggested by Capt. Livingston and the masters of 
certain American vessels and consider whether at present the advan¬ 
tages, intangible and uncertain as they are, may outweigh the dis¬ 
advantages. 

Mr. Powell. Have you the total amount of Canadian shipping 
that passes up and down here ? 

Mr. King. I will be glad to supply that to the commission. I 
have not it with me at present. 

Mr. Powell. I suppose the Canadian shipping interests say that 
they do not intend to be behind the Americans as soon as they can 
proceed with the deepening of their canal system at the Sault, so as to 
compete on equal terms for a share of the Lake traffic. 

Mr. King. For years we have been endeavoring to get the Cana¬ 
dian Government to establish another lock at the Sault. 

Mr. Powell. We have been ahead of the Americans for some 
time, and now we are likely to be behind them. 

Mr. King. We are commencing now on the Welland Canal system, 
and we will invite some of our American friends to our port of King¬ 
ston when we get the Welland Canal established. 

Mr. Streeter. Do you know to what extent any Canadian inter¬ 
est the Canadian Government, or your associates, or other Canadian 


176 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


interests, have made expenditures for the improvement of the Detroit 
River % 

Mr. King. I have not the figures. 

Mr. Streeter. Is it so that certain expenditures have been made 
by the Canadian Government ? 

Mr. King. Undoubtedly. At the same time it is admitted at once 
that a very large part of the expenditure made by the American 
Government has been made in Canadian waters, but I would say that 
it was at the instance of the association I represent that we induced 
the Canadian Government to pay for and maintain the lightship at 
the southeast shoal in Lake Erie which was being maintained by 
American interests in our own waters. I am perfectly certain that 
the Canadian Government, from all I have heard recently in discus¬ 
sion with our association, is anxious and willing and is on the point 
of undertaking every expenditure that should be made in its own 
waters to maintain and assist navigation. 

Mr. Streeter. Would it be practical to put into the report the 
amount of expenditure that has been made by Canada ? 

Mr. King. If the commission considers it a question at all in the 
case, I think the figures could be obtained; I think they could be best 
obtained from Mr. Stewart and Col. Lamb. 

ARGUMENT OF MR. WHITE, K. C., FOR CANADA. 

Mr. W. R. White, K. C. (for Canada). Mr. Chairman and gentle¬ 
men of the commission, you will be glad to learn that I do not intend 
to detain you with any very lengthy argument. I merely desire to 
state, in sustaining the position which we assumed at the opening of 
this inquiry, when you were kind enough to permit me to file a memo¬ 
randum, that we have endeavored all along in so far as possible to 
restrict the inquiry to the position which has been assumed by the 
Government I represent here. Before proceeding with my argument 
I think it is proper and right that I should convey to you gentlemen 
my high appreciation of the careful, painstaking, absolutely fair, and 
impartial manner in which this investigation has been conducted. I 
say that not for the purpose of saying kindly things to you gentlemen 
in your presence, but in the hope that it may go out to the public as 
to how we feel with regard to the commission as at present constituted. 
In making that statement I feel perfectly sure that I am voicing the 
sentiments of every gentleman who has been concerned in this 
inquiry. 

Proceeding, then, I shall indicate my argument by simply saying 
that I propose to deal generally, on general terms, with the situation 
as it presents itself to the Dominion Government, and I will leave any 
matters of detail to my younger and abler colleague, Mr. Maclnnes. 

It has been forcibly impressed upon the Dominion Government 
from time to time that this matter and all matters relating to the 
boundary waters and the navigation thereof, and the improvement 
on them from time to time, should not be dealt with in detail. It 
was felt that the chain of navigation, from the Great Lakes to the sea, 
should have every link as perfect and complete as it was possible for 
both countries united and devoting their energies to it to make that 
change. It was therefore thought by the Government of Canada, 
where a matter which upon the face of it seemed to be a purely local 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


177 


matter, that it was proper to take it lip, but where it was part of one 
of the links of that great chain of navigation which could not be 
completed without considering the other things it ought to be taken 
into consideration in a broader light than a merely local matter. It 
is perfectly clear to everybody upon both sides of the question that 
there is really no conflict between the Government of Canada and 
the Government of the United States upon what should be done 
with the great highway waterways between the two countries. It 
is not a question of international dispute at all or of argument, but 
a question in which both the high contracting parties, and this 
commission representing both countries, should use their best en¬ 
deavor, and the knowledge that can be got by them through their 
experts, and the knowledge they possess themselves, in evolving a 
scheme which will protect and continue the waterways at least in 
the position in which they are at present and prevent their being 
despoiled or depleted at any point along the great national highway 
waterways, whether that depletion be in the United States or in 
Canada. In considering this question, I submit to you gentlemen 
that this reference is not a reference which is purely local, because 
you can not consider that question intelligently without considering 
the whole question of the water which flows into and forms the 
channel at tne particular point which is under investigation. 

It has appeared to me, listening'to the evidence on both sides, 
that if in the first place there had not been a depletion of the source 
of water supply at the upper end of it, that there would be practically 
comparatively slight necessity for the construction of this channel 
in the first place. But certainly, whether I am right or wrong in 
that, the position is forced on me, that if the water supply had been 
left at its normal level, as shown for the last 47 or 48 years, without 
diversion at the other end, there would have been no necessity in any 
way for compensating works here. If that be so, then it is perfectly 
plain that as to the compensating works here, or what are called the 
necessary and desirable works, would not come before you for con¬ 
sideration at all, and would not bother you in your deliberations, 
because they would have had no application if that diversion had not 
taken place. Therefore, we must consider with regard to everywhere 
along the Lakes, how depletion .or diversion of the water at one point 
affects the waters at other points. If you agree with that view, then 
the Dominion Government will be perfectly satisfied that you are 
dealing with the question in a way that will be satisfactory to them 
whatever conclusion you may arrive at. 

To come to the case as presented by the United States through 
Mr. Strickland, their counsel, and Col. Patrick, it seems to me, 
looking at it as fairly as I possibly can, without any prejudice one way 
or the other, that they have failed to establish their case as to the 
construction of this dike. In the first place, they have failed to show 
it is necessary ; because the only reason urged for the necessity of the 
construction "of this dike is the improvement of navigation in the 
Livingstone Channel. 

In addition to the witnesses that have been examined on both sides 
of this case as to the question of the danger of navigating this channel 
by the boats that are used in the Lake traffic, we find that one set of 
captains find little or no difficulty at all in navigating that channel, 

86342—13-12 


178 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


and that others appear to have found very slight difficulty. They 
all managed to come through with absolute safety during the period 
that the channel was open from some time in October until the close 
of navigation last year. I would like to press very strongly upon 
you, gentlemen, on the point of the necessity of the construction of this 
dike, that in addition to the witnesses called and sworn by this court, 
there are 1,227 silent witnesses as to the lack of danger in the Living¬ 
stone Channel, and in that I refer to the 1,227 vessels that passed 
through it during the period from its opening in October until naviga¬ 
tion closed, without, so far as we know, a single case of grounding or 
any danger or injury occurring to the vessels. So large a number 
of vessels went through that channel that 57 are said to have 
gone through in one day. That I take from the Lake Carriers' Asso¬ 
ciation report. If that be so, then the necessity for the construction 
of that dike is not made out. If that be the result, and there is no 
necessity for it, then is not that necessity more than counterbalanced 
by the damage and injury which will be done, on the evidence given 
here, as to the discharge of sewage into the Amherstburg Channel ? 
Even if you come to the conclusion that this is either necessary or 
desirable and so report, I submit that from the evidence that has 
been given here—and Capt. Livingstone himself perhaps gave as 
strong testimony as possible in the particular matter before the com¬ 
mission as to the construction of this dike—was strongly against the 
diversion at Chicago. 

I submit on behalf of the Dominion Government that we consider 
it exceedingly important, of vital importance, not only to the Do¬ 
minion of Canada, but to the whole country on both sides bordering 
upon the Great Lakes, to every village, town, and hamlet, and every 
dweller along the lakes—it is of vital importance that if any ex¬ 
penditure by either country is to be undertaken, the question of the 
amount of diversion at Chicago should be settled. I submit that 
that can only be settled, as far as I have looked into it—I may be 
entirely wrong in this—I submit that that can only be settled by an 
act of Congress. I am quite sure that if you gentlemen will yield to 
my request, and put a recommendation of that kind in whatever 
report you may make with regard to the construction of this dike, 
it will carry with it great weight. If you will recommend, as I think 
you have the right to do, to the Federal Government that this matter 
of diversion should be taken up, that the question should be settled 
for all time by an act of Congress and the amount of diversion fixed, 
then you will have done something for both countries which both 
countries ought to be grateful for. I am perfectly certain that if 
such representation is made by such a body as this it will receive 
the very greatest attention from both Governments. I do not wish 
to say a word with regard to the fact that diversion is being made at 
Chicago, and which in my opinion and in the opinion of the Govern¬ 
ment I represent should be checked. I do not wish to say a word 
that might be misinterpreted outside. Our desire and the desire of 
the Government I represent is to act in absolute unison with the 
Federal Government of the United States. The entente cordiale 
that has existed between the two countries and which exists at pres¬ 
ent should continue with respect to these matters; we hope it will, 
and we believe it will, and I feel satisfied that the only point upon 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


179 


which any controversy could arise is upon the diversion of the water¬ 
ways and the necessity which arises for compensating for that diver¬ 
sion at this point. 

I have to thank you, gentlemen, for the attention you have given me. 

Mr. Powell. What are our rights in this channel—have we the 
right of free navigation? 

Mr. White. Both countries have equal rights in all the boundary 
waters. 

Mr. Powell. There is no power on the part of either country to 
discriminate against the citizens of the other. 

Mr. White. The United States have a perfect right to navigate 
our waters, including our canals, and we have a right to navigate 
theirs; that is a joint right accorded by treaty; there is no question 
about that. I would point out to the commission that practically 
there is no great hurry in proceeding with this work, even if it is neces¬ 
sary. That has been shown by the evidence before you, and I would 
press upon you that you might postpone a decision upon this matter 
until you see by experience ho.w this Livingstone Channel really does 
work. On that point it appears to depend to a certain extent upon 
the question of whether the right thing to do is to make a dike or 
increase the width of the channel. 

Mr. Tawney. In view of the deliberate judgment of those who 
are experienced in navigating the Detroit River, in view of the judg¬ 
ment of the experienced engineers as to the possible danger to navi¬ 
gation, do you think it would be wise that the two Governments 
should wait until damage has been done before proceeding to remove 
the danger, rather than to take care of the anticipated danger based 
upon the judgment of those who have experience and knowledge ? 

Mr. White. I have tried to point out to the commission that in 
my judgment no captain who went into the box—perhaps only one—- 
pronounced this as an absolutely necessary work. I point to the 
number of captains who went into the box and declared that they 
had navigated that channel with perfect safety, and the fact remains 
undisputed that every vessel that went down there during the season 
of navigation, while it was open last year, passed through in safety; 
one vessel was said to have met with an accident going through there, 
but it turned out upon inquiry that that vessel was not in the channel 
at all when the accident occurred, but at the entrance of the channel 
above, and I understand the captain of that vessel resides in Port 
Huron or somewhere in the vicinity of Detroit, and I would suggest 
to the commission that if any reliance is to be placed on that, it is 
proper that that captain should have been called. The whole*vol¬ 
ume of testimony is against there being any serious danger in that 
channel. All these captains are anxious to get anything that would 
help them in navigation, but they have all declared that they had 
no difficulty of any kind in running that channel. 

ARGUMENT OF CHARLES S. MACINNES, K. C., ON BEHALF 
OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA. 

Mr. MacInnes. Mr Chairman and gentlemen of the commission, I 
shall endeavor, as far as possible, not to repeat the arguments which 
have been so clearly put before you by my learned friend; but I 
shall endeavor rather to place before you briefly what appear to me 


180 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


to be the main propositions involved in this question. Before doing 
so I would like to express to the commission the sincere feeling of 
honor that I have in addressing this commission, and also to asso¬ 
ciate myself with the remarks of my learned friend as to the manner 
in which this case has been dealt with—a manner, if I may say so, 
which is as worthy of the great powers which this commission has 
and is worthy also of the eminent personnel of the commission and 
worthy of the great interests which have been committed to your 
charge. 

I would like also, on behalf of the Canadian engineers, to express 
their thanks for the cooperation and assistance which have been given 
to them in dealing with this matter by the United States engineers. 
The existence of that feeling of cordiality and appreciation of assist¬ 
ance, it appears to me, adds great weight to the remarks which were 
made by Commissioner Magrath, that it might be well, if it could be 
arranged, that such cooperation should in the future not be merely 
spasmodic or temporary, but should, so far as possible, be continu¬ 
ous, so that this commission may have the benefit of the work of 
engineers carried on continuously and with the fullest cooperation. 

The propositions here which seem to me to stand out in this case 
are as follows: First, that in its local aspect no case has been made 
out as to the necessity, or as to the desirability, of these works, 
whether with regard to the question of compensation of water levels 
or whether with regard to the question of cross currents. Secondly, 
that the subject matter of this reference has in itself a wider signifi¬ 
cance and a broader aspect, an aspect which might be called inter¬ 
national, but yet which, in view of that very coincidence of interest 
which the chairman referred to, might be described as conational. 
Both nations are interested in the broader aspect, that broader aspect 
being the question of the water levels of the whole of this interna¬ 
tional highway. But, further, whatever the disposition by this 
commission of the local aspect of this case may be, it is both necessary 
and desirable that the broader aspect should also be dealt with. The 
form of the questions in this case which have been submitted to you 
does not exclude, but rather includes, the broader conational aspect 
to which I have referred. And, lastly, that the report of this com¬ 
mission, if I may be allowed to make a suggestion on that point, 
should be such that whether this broader aspect is dealt with or not, 
you probably may not desire that s?uch reference to it should be 
made as to enable the question to be dealt with at the earliest possible 
moment and to give it impetus to dealing with this question which 
obviously is larger than the one with which we are dealing. 

To go somewhat further into detail as to those various points, that 
is, as to the local necessity as to the broader aspect as to both being 
of necessity intertwined in this case and as to the forms of the ques¬ 
tions, I would say that in its local aspects the onus is on the applicants. 
The evidence has been conflicting on the question of cross currents. 
The evidence is really not conflicting on the question of compen¬ 
sation. On the question of cross currents there is doubt. 

It surely can not be said that there is any necessity as to desira¬ 
bility. That is another point, but before deciding as to desirability 
it must be remembered that on the other side there are very strong 
arguments against the desirability, and that, further than that, the 
situation is such as was shown by the evidence of these mariners 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


181 


that the desirability arises, perhaps, largely out of the newness of 
the situation with respect to this channel. It has also been estab¬ 
lished that there is no urgency, and, as there is not that urgency, 
time itself will cure whatever vestige of desirability there may be. 
So that on the evidence which has been put before you on this local 
aspect enough has not been made out to make it either necessary or 
desirable that this work should be established, or at least, established 
at once; that there is no reason in its local aspect, in other words, 
why it should not stand until an opportunity of dealing with the 
broader problem is had. The broader problem is the water levels of 
the whole of the international highway. I do not think I can put that 
point better than in the language of Senator Root in the Senate the 
other day in which he said that navigation of a particular part of a 
waterway does not stand by itself, but that it is as much a whole as a 
transcontinental railway. 

Now, the questions which affect the water levels and which are 
involved in this broader aspect, are the diversion of the waters in 
Lake Michigan at Chicago, and the question of the erection of a 
submerged weir above Niagara Falls. The question of the sub¬ 
merged weir would affect the question of levels and also the question 
of currents. The question at Chicago would not, as witnesses have 
stated in answer to questions by Commissioner Streeter, deal with the 
question of currents possibly, but it would fully cover the question 
of compensation. So, on the one hand, we have the question of the 
weir at Niagara Falls, which would cover the question of compensa¬ 
tion, and we have at the other end the diversion in Lake Michigan, 
which would, beyond any doubt, cover the question of compensation. 
The fact as to the diversion at Chicago has been stated here, and we 
are well aware that while there is a permit for only a withdrawal of 
4,000 second-feet, that Chicago, according to the report of the United 
States engineers, is taking at least 7,000 second-feet, and doubtless 
more. Further than that, it is well known that the work at Chicago 
would permit of a diversion of not less than 14,000 second-feet. That 
this danger is not imaginary but real is shown by the fact that at the 
hearing before Secretary Stimson in the spring of last year there 
appeared before him in vigorous protest every large interest along 
the whole of this international highway, from Milwaukee to Montreal, 
or, as one gentleman before Mr. Stimson put it, from Chicago to the 
sea. They entered their protest there and Canada was permitted to 
join in that protest. The matter was dealt with by Mr. Stimson and 
permission was refused for a formal permit for an increased withdrawal 
from 4,000 to 10,000 feet. At the same time, that diversion is going 
on, and unless steps are taken it will continue to go on. 

. I understood Commissioner Turner during the hearings here to 
suggest that it may be assumed that the United States Government 
will take such steps as to put an end to this unauthorized diversion. 
That is an assurance that would be very comforting to all these great 
interests of the United States and to the interests of Canada as well; 
but my suggestion is this, that even though that may be assumed, 
it is eminently desirable in the interest of those great industries that 
this commission as a body should endeavor to give an impetus to an 
effectual consideration of the question. 

Mr. Turner. I wish you would indicate exactly what influence 
either the Chicago diversion or the diversion at Niagara Falls ought 


182 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


to have upon the determination of the entire question. What spe¬ 
cific action do you think we ought to take in view of the submission 
of the specific questions to the commission ? I do not exactly under¬ 
stand the influence you think they ought to have upon the deter¬ 
mination of these questions. 

Mr. MacInnes. It is admitted by the engineers that these works, 
so far as compensation is concerned, will deal with the question of 
water levels, and if this diversion at Lake Michigan did not take 
place no compensation whatever would be necessary here. In other 
words, to do something here is perfectly futile and undesirable if it 
can be done in another way. As Mr. Stewart put it, a cessation of 
that diversion in Lake Michigan would have a greater effect upon 
compensation than this dam. 

Mr. Turner. Is it your idea that the commission should say that 
there is an unlawful diversion of water through the Chicago Drainage 
Canal and for that reason it is not desirable or necessary for this dike 
to be built ? 

Mr. MacInnes. My suggestion in regard to that would be this: 
That in your report, whether the report be to the effect that a case 
has been made out for local necessity or desirability, there should be 
added to that, in the strongest possible language, that it is undesira¬ 
ble for this great commission to be dealing with the question in a 
piecemeal local manner. In other words, if this diversion is con¬ 
tinued, these questions would still be coming before you one by one, 
local questions here and there, whereas there is, in fact, one possible 
solution which would cover probably the whole ground. 

Mr. Turner. Then, I understand you do not think that we should 
consider that for the purpose of determining whether or not this dike 
should be built, but that our report should be supplemented by some 
recommendation with reference to that ? 

Mr. MacInnes. That is so, but I wish to be understood as saying 
that I think it is very possible that the commission will come to the 
feeling that the local case has not been made out; but whether that 
report is to that effect or not, my suggestion is that there should be a 
rider to the report of this commission that it is undesirable in the 
interest, not of Canada alone, but of the interests of all parties con¬ 
cerned, and as I said before, it is not Canada against the United 
States. This commission with all its vast powers should not, I might 
use the expression, waste its energies in dealing with a matter which 
in its essence must be, and should be, dealt with as a whole. 

Mr. Turner. Mr. MacInnes, in view of the fact that Lake Michi¬ 
gan is not within the jurisdiction of this commission under the treaty, 
and no specific reference is made in the questions submitted that 
would give jurisdiction to the commission even for investigating pur¬ 
poses, do you think that the commission could with propriety report 
back to tne Governments on a subject matter that was not within 
our jurisdiction or had not been referred to us? 

Mr. MacInnes. I would submit so for the reason that whether it 
be within your jurisdiction or not there could be no doubt that juris¬ 
diction could be given, or that the matter could be dealt with in 
some other manner. 

Mr. Turner. I do not doubt that jurisdiction could be given, but 
it would require the action of both .Governments. 

Mr. MacInnes. I appreciate that. 


& 




THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 183 

Mr. Casgeain. There is an authority to the effect that Lake Michi- 
gan is a boundary water. 

Mr. MacInnes. Yes, sir; that is very possible. 

Mr. Powell. There may not be a comprehensive jurisdiction, but 
there is a specific jurisdiction, because Article I of the treaty says 
that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this same right of 
navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all 
canals connecting boundary waters, etc. 

Mr. MacInnes. I would go so far in my proposition as this: That 
even though such a matter could not be brought before the commis¬ 
sion, although undoubtedly it could by consent, that though it were 
a matter with which the high contracting parties alone could deal, 
it would be eminently proper and be the only proper answer of this 
commission in dealing with local matters to say that it is useless for 
the commission to deal with these matters when another quite larger 
matter, which covers them, and which can be dealt with by some 
proper authority, is still outstanding. 

Mr. Streeter. The question of compensation in this particular 
case is regarded as substantially negligible, and it also appears that 
any restoration of the diversion at Chicago would not have any effect 
upon the existence of those cross currents. Now, suppose the com¬ 
mission, after due consideration, should conclude that the existence 
of those cross currents was even a serious menace or of such character 
that their removal would greatly benefit navigation, do you see how 
the commission could properly defer considering that question to 
await the development of another situation which would not have 
any effect upon that situation at all ? 

Mr. MacInnes. What I would say in answer to that is this: 
That whether or not you would go so far as to adopt our suggestion 
that this matter should stand until these greater questions are dealt 
with, there should be such a rider to your report as to make it clear 
that it was in the opinion of this commission desirable that these local 
questions which involve lake levels should not be brought before this 
commission and asked to be dealt with until the broader question is 
dealt with by the proper authority. The question in itself postulates 
and determines the consideration of this work as a boundary work. 
The first question of the reference to the commission is, under all the 
circumstances and .conditions surrounding the navigation and other 
uses of the Livingstone and other channels in the Detroit River on 
either side of the international boundary, is the erection of any dikes 
or other compensatory work being necessary or desirable. So that 
what you have before you is a question of compensation. That is 
the question which has been submitted to you, but my argument is 
that being a question of compensation it of necessity brings in the 
wider question, the question of the water levels of the whole of the 
international highway. 

I do not know whether I have made myself clear to you, Mr. Streeter, 
on that point, or whether it was your suggestion that this commission 
should disregard the compensation aspect wholly. 

Mr. Streeter. Of course, I have not approached that question yet. 
I was trying to get your views regarding it. 

Mr. MacInnes. As to how wide the question may be, I would 
venture to invite the attention of the commission to the concluding 
language of the second clause of the reference, as to where the 


184 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


compensatory works, if they are found to be necessary or desirable, 
should be located in order to serve most advantageously the interests 
involved on both sides of the international boundary. 

Mr. Powell. Do I understand you to be committing yourself to 
the distinction that was drawn by Mr. Stewart as between the 4,000 
or 5,000 second-feet of water that were authorized by the statute of 
the United States and the excess which was unauthorized by any 
statute? Do you base your argument on the excess as the calcula¬ 
tions by Mr. Stew T art were based? 

Mr. MacInnes. As to any diversion, the submission of Canada 
would be that such diversion is not permissible. 

Mr. Powell. Whether in excess of what purports to be legalized or 
not? 

Mr. MacInnes. Quite so. 

Mr. Powell. There is no distinction in principle. I do not think 
it has ever been suggested that Canada has ever assented to the 
diversion of any water from Lake Michigan which would affect the j 
levels of water in which Canada was interested. 

Mr. Powell. Then you would ask us to suspend action, so far as 
adjudication is concerned, until this whole question of the Chicago 
Drainage Canal is settled? 

Mr. MacInnes. Yes, sir; or that the rider should be in such form 
that it should be made perfectly clear that it was the opinion of this 
commission as a whole that the entire question at Chicago should be 
taken up. 

Mr. Powell. Suppose it is never settled ? Suppose the two high 
contracting powers never settle the Chicago question; are we to sus¬ 
pend judgment eternally on this question? 

Mr. MacInnes. No, sir; that was not my argument. My argu¬ 
ment was this: In the first place, I think it would be a fair and proper 
position for this commission to take to say that there is no desirability 
or necessity. If, however, the commission should be of the opinion 
that such a case has not been made out, let the report be to that effect, 
but my suggestion would be that the rider should be to that report 
not of necessity delaying the proceedings in this matter, but that the 
whole question should be taken up. 

Mr. Casgrain. If the Dominion Government now says we should 
not decide this particular question until the whole question of the 
level of the lakes is submitted to us, why did they consent to this 
reference ? 

Mr., MacInnes. On the terms of the reference, and certainly on the 
construction which the Government of the Dominion of Canada put 
upon it, this wider question is included; that under all the circum¬ 
stances and conditions surrounding navigation if your report is to 
justify the erection of this dam as a matter of compensation, then th'e 
question is bound to bring in a consideration of the wider question. 

I quite see the point which was made by Mr. Streeter that if the 
commission could see its way to wholly disregard the question of 
compensation they might say that this work was necessary or de¬ 
sirable on account of cross currents, but my answer was that even if 
that should be so there is a desirability for the purpose of bringing 
up the wider question. 

Mr. Powell. I can understand the point of view of the people of 
Amherstburg, but you represent the Dominion, where the only inter- 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


185 


ests are those in connection with shipping and navigation. In what 
way is there a possible conflict between shipping interests of the 
Dominion, apart from these local things at Amherstburg, and the 
interest of the American Navigation Association, or whatever it may 
be ? So far as this portion of the river is concerned, are their interests 
not absolutely identical ? 

Mr. MacInnes. Their navigation interests; yes. 

Mr. Powell. Where would the compensatory matter come in, then, 
from your standpoint ? 

Mr. MacInnes. In this way: It is desirable in the interest of navi¬ 
gation, both in the United States and Canada, that this question 
affecting the lake levels should be dealt with. If these local matters 
are to be dealt with one by one without regard to that greater ques¬ 
tion, that greater question never will be dealt with. Therefore, the 
necessary conclusion in those premises, it seems to me, is that every¬ 
thing should be done to prevent the matter being dealt with piece¬ 
meal, but rather to bring about dealing with the question as a whole. 

Mr. Powell. This jurisdiction is thrust upon us by both powers 
interested who have told us to deal with it. The time for the high 
contracting parties to have thought of that was before they thrust it 
into this forum. Are they going to cancel our submission now and 
tell us not to deal with these matters ? 

Mr. MacInnes. This matter came up at the request of the United 
States. Consent by Canada had to be required on account of the 
work being in Canadian territory. It was suggested by Canada that 
the International Joint Commission would be the proper party to deal 
with it. The application is one by the United States, but I do not 
imagine for a moment that it was ever contemplated by the Dominion 
of Canada that any action by them in respect to this question should 
militate against their interests in having a wider question dealt with. 

Mr. Turner. Do you not think that if it had been the intention of 
the two Governments that we should deal with this wider question 
that it would have been subsequently mentioned to us ? 

Mr. MacInnes. Not of necessity, for this reason, that one of the 
objects of this commission was stated by the chairman in the opening 
of the hearings, that an opportunity is afforded for having the whole 
matter explained and fully understood. Now, the situation has de¬ 
veloped which very likely was not clear to the Governments them¬ 
selves of the essential connection between the smaller question and 
the larger question. 

I am not asking or suggesting to the commission that they should 
decide the question of the Chicago Canal. I admit that that question is 
not before this commission as a question to be decided. My suggestion 
is,however, that this commission should point out the absolute futilitv 
of dealing with these local matters until the Chicago question is dealt 
with. That is a proper answer, it seems to me, to the questions which 
were put. In other words, I am not contending for a moment that 
these questions cover the disposition by this body of the Chicago 
question, but I am suggesting that this opportunity should be taken 
of pointing out to the Governments that the matter must be dealt 
with, because while it stands these local questions can not be dealt 
with as they should be. It seems to me that there is no answer to 
that argument. If the question were put in the most local possible 
form and the commission felt that no answer could be given which 


186 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


would properly answer without a consideration of the other matter, 
surely that is a proper answer to be given to the question. 

The Chairman. Suppose, Mr. Maclnnes, that the commission 
should find that the only necessity for this improvement grew out of 
the cross currents, and that the diversion of the water at Chicago does 
not affect the solution of that problem, would it be proper for the 
commission then in passing upon the question of the effect of the cross 
currents to also reier to the Chicago diversion which was entirely 
unrelated in fact to the subject with which we are dealing? 

Mr. MacInnes. I would say undoubtedly and unhesitatingly yes, 
because this matter came before you as a compensating question. 

Mr. Turner. Why do you s&y it comes to us purely as a compen¬ 
sating matter ? 

Mr. MacInnes. Not “purely/’ but as a compensating question. 

Mr. Turner. I understand you refer to the dike as a compensatory 
work. The first thing there is a dike. Then in characterizing it 
further on they refer to it as compensatory work, a dike or other 
compensatory work being necessary or desirable for the improvement 
or safety of navigation. 

Mr. MacInnes. My submission is this: That there is a great oppor¬ 
tunity given to this commission on this application before it not of 
showing that it is merely active and energetic in dealing with matters 
in a small way, but of taking every opportunity of bringing up what is, 
unless one closes ones eyes, the real question at issue. It would be 
perfectly proper and counted as only worthy of this commission to 
take up this opportunity of dealing with the larger question. This 
Chicago matter is one of the largest and most important matters that 
affect these great interests, and I can only say that if this occasion 
should be the starting point, and if this commission should be the 
origin of an effectual consideration of this matter, then this meeting 
before you to-day is of no small historical significance. If such an 
effectual consideration can be brought about by the report that you 
are to make, it would be without any undue exaggeration the wor¬ 
thiest monument that could be found for the celebration of that 
long-continued peace to which the chairman referred in his opening 
remarks. 

I say that not as a matter of exaggeration or in attempting to deal 
with the matter too broadly, but as the sincere feeling that I have in 
this matter, and as a sincere feeling that I understand that the Gov¬ 
ernment of Canada has that this occasion should be taken advantage 
of by the commission at the suggestion of counsel before it, and 
without offense to either of the high contracting parties involved, to 
have the greater question dealt with. 

Mr. Powell. If we do anything in respect to that dam we are 
denying every interest that you represent, any compensatory works 
whatever. If we order the dike in it is a measure of compensatory 
work, although not as great as you would like possibly. Now, if we 
adopt your plan, we deny everything that you represent. 

Mr. MacInnes. No, sir. If you find that this dike is necessary or 
desirable, so report by all means. I am not suggesting any tiling to 
the contrary. I am not suggesting that this should be held up, but 
I am asking that in that report this occasion should be seized to have 
an impetus given to taking up the wider matter. 

Mr. Casgrain. You say it is not necessary or desirable? 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


187 


Mr. MacInnes. Quite so. 

The Chairman. The Congress of the United States has considered 
the necessity and has found it to be desirable. They have authorized 
the work to be done and have appropriated the money for the purpose 
of defraying the expense. That evidence of the necessity I do not 
think has been put in the record, although I do not know that this 
commission will take judicial notice of it. 

Mr. White. As I stated in my argument, you gentlemen can go on 
and decide this whole question, and it may be proper for you to do so, 
but we think that it is proper also for you to add to your report, 
because it is only a report, a recommendation that this question of 
the diversion of water at Chicago, which is of such vital importance 
as has been admitted by every witness and every vessel owner and 
every captain upon the Lakes, should be dealt with immediately by 
somebody. 

Mr. Casgrain. I think the statute of the hunted States authorizing 
the work should be put in the record. 

The Chairman. Mr. Strickland will obtain a copy and it will be 
placed in the record. 

ARGUMENT OF G. LYNCH STAUNTON, K. C., ON BEHALF OF THE 
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. 

Mr. Staunton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the commission, 
I appear here on behalf of the Province of Ontario. The Province of 
Ontario is the chief Province of the Dominion so far as this board is 
concerned. The international waters wash this Province from one 
end to the other—from away up at the end of the Lakes down to the 
Province of Quebec, and Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, New York, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin; all are States opposite this one Province of 
Ontario. We ai*e, therefore, in our Province more interested in this 
commission than all the Provinces of Canada put together. The 
Province of Ontario is the only Province, excepting Quebec, that has 
any interest in this question which is now before you. 

Now, what is the question which is before you ? It is whether or 
not, under all the circumstances, it is desirable or necessary to 
approve of the building of this dike. I say that this is illegal and 
improper, and that the Dominion of Canada and the United States 
wifi be acting illegally if they allow this work under this evidence. 
The evidence here is that if you put this dike in the position named 
3 r ou will throw a larger quantity of polluted water on the shores of the 
Province of Ontario. The treaty provides in Article IV as follows: 

It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters 
flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health 
or property on the other. 

The evidence before you establishes the fact that sewage from the 
city of Detroit, to a certain degree, is now polluting the water which 
flows by the town of Amherstburg. It is true, also, that the sewage 
coming from the Canadian towns and villages is also polluting that 
district. According to the witnesses on behalf of the United States 
and the witnesses on behalf of Canada, it is proved beyond contra¬ 
diction, and it will be admitted by all hands, that there will be a 
larger amount of polluted water distributed along that shore and a 
larger amount of sewage deposited in the Canadian waters than have 


188 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


heretofore been deposited if you build this dike. That being a fact, 
the Governments will be hying in the face of the treaty and ignoring 
it; and I claim on behalf of the Province of Ontario that neither 
Government shall violate the provisions of this treaty. 

It is said by the Parliament of Canada that the law of Canada and 
of the Provinces is amended to accord with this treaty and the 
Dominion Government has undertaken to amend our laws in the 
Province, whether legally or illegally it is not for me to determine nor 
for me to discuss now, but they have gained for us the inestimable 
right to forbid the great city of Detroit to throw its pollution on our 
shores. I put it on that ground alone, that even if you come to the 
conclusion that this is desirable or necessary for navigation, that you 
must say that under all the circumstances it is not a proper act for the 
American Government to take. One of the local circumstances is 
the health of the people in that Province. I am not going to discuss 
now the question of whether we can bring in the great question of the 
obstruction of water by the city of Chicago. I submit that under 
this treaty the people of Amherstburg can go into the courts of the 
State of Michigan, and if the law is the same in Michigan as it is in 
Ontario, and I presume it is, they can get an injunction against the 
city of Detroit preventing them from pouring their sewage into that 
international water, because the treaty says that if anything they 
do injuriously affects the people on the other side they shall h^ive a 
status in the courts of this country. I have obtained more than one 
injunction against the city, and I know from experience that the 
courts of our country will not allow the cities to pour their sewage 
into the public waters so as to affect the health or comfort of the 
people of the country. 

We appear here before this tribunal; a unique tribunal in the 
history of the world I think; a tribunal in which two nations meet 
together for the purpose of constituting a court wbich shall decide 
without fear or favor, without prejudice or without thought that 
there is any international boundary between us. You should con¬ 
sider this as judges sitting here to administer the law either of the 
United States or Canada, and for purposes of this decision you should 
consider Canada a part of the United States and the United States 
a part of Canada. That is to say, that theoretically in this tribunal 
we are under one flag, and being in that position it is for you to say 
whether or not you think it is lawful. I submit that you should report 
that under the circumstances it is not proper to construct this weir, 
because you have a way out in another direction. The engineers can 
place this dam or weir in another place, which may not, perhaps, in 
their judgment, be as desirable a location for the dike, but which will 
be a legal location, and which will allow them to compensate for the 
loss of the water and obviate the danger without doing any illegal act. 
If they can compensate and obviate the dangers without acting 
illegally, or without walking roughshod over the rights of the people 
of this little community along this shore, I say that they should do 
it, because might even in the hands of a government is not right, and 
a government should always protect, as far as possible, the private 
interests of the people. Therefore, the American Government should 
not, regarding that all as one country for the purpose of this argu¬ 
ment, injuriously affect the rights of its own citizens or of our citizens, 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


189 


when there is another location which will allow the installation of a 
work which will effect the same end. 

I consider that my Government is the guardian of the interests of 
the people of the Province of Ontario. We have believed that the 
statements made here that it will affect the health of those people 
are true and are unanswered, and we think that it is our duty—and 
I would fight just as strongly if this were the Dominion Government 
that was making this application—to voice those arguments before 
this tribunal. Besides that, we have the assistance of the interests 
in Detroit. Mr. Campbell shows that it will injuriously affect the 
rights of his company. No person has said here that it is absolutely 
sure that the Amherstburg Channel will not be affected as a navigable 
stream. It has been said here that it will be injuriously affected by 
this work. That is another consideration in which I am interested 
in behalf of the Province of Ontario, and I submit, Mr. Chairman and 
gentlemen of the commission, that if you could pass my first argu¬ 
ment you should be absolutely clear that it is established that it will 
not injuriously affect that other channel. 

It has been stated that the making of this funnel through which 
this water will be discharged will not decrease but will increase the 
velocity of the flow across the Livinstone Channel. Gentlemen have 
said that the flow will strike the channel at such an angle that it will 
not affect it at all. How do they know how the currents and changes 
and all these differences that are resulting from the works that 
are being done in this river may affect it? Has it been established 
that this current, setting across this channel, will render vessels 
unmanageable? Nobody has ventured an opinion that it will render 
vessels unmanageable. Those vessels are manageable, and as long 
as they are manageable there is no danger. Certainly all the vessels 
that went through there last year were manageable. Vessels went 
through laden and vessels went through light, and they were manage¬ 
able. So long as they are manageable, how can there be any danger 
arising from that cross current? Have they shown by any witness 
what rate of cross current will make a vessel unmanageable ? 

We know that in a channel of a certain width a cross current of a 
certain velocity will affect, and has heretofore affected, vessels and 
will cause injuries in some waters of the world, but not one soul has 
gone on the witness stand and said that these currents do any harm. 

Mr. Casgrain. Some of the captains who have testified here have 
stated that a fog might come on suddenly while they are in the chan¬ 
nel, and if it does then these cross currents become very dangerous, 
because they have to slow down and the cross currents catch them 
and carry them over to the other bank. 

Mr. Staunton. I appreciate that. They said that is what they 
expect, but why have they not shown that that is so in any other 
channel ? They have made their statements, I believe, in absolutely 
good faith. I do not believe there has been a witness on the stand 
who has endeavored to gloss any of his testimony or who has not 
been perfectly sincere, but I think not one of those gentlemen has 
said that their statements were based upon experience. They said 
that they expected those dangers. Why did they not say that such 
dangers arise in places where cross currents of this velocity occur? 
They may be perfectly correct, but you are undertaking to decide 
this question on evidence, and I say that there is no evidence here, 


190 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


excepting the speculation of these gentlemen, as to whether or not 
those dangers exist. 

My instructions were to say to you that it was not in the interests 
of the States bordering on these waters or of the Province of Ontario 
to in any way aid or help you in the solution of this question. We 
thought that it was in the interest of the Province, and the States 
bordering on the waters, excepting the State of Illinois, to keep this 
in the air as long as possible. 

Mr. Streeter. Is that your present position ? 

Mr. Staunton. I am going to state the view I take. I quite appre¬ 
ciate that it is not a logical position. I think if I am to be heard 
here at all I ought to try to speak on the merits of the case, and I 
have endeavored to answer this on the merits. Quite irrespective of 
that, a politic position for the States, excepting the State of Illinois, 
and the Province is not to get any solution unless they can induce 
the Federal authority to come to some arrangement with regard to 
the Chicago matter. 

Mr. Streeter. Do you think that this commission is a body to 
deal with that question ? 

Mr. Staunton. No; not now. I do not think there is any answer 
to Mr. Turner’s question. But I say that I want to lug it in so far 
as possible for the purpose of bringing about a solution. On the case 
on the merits, however, I think I have a perfect answer to it in Arti¬ 
cle IV of the treaty. 

Mr. Powell. You have a much stronger case under Article VIII 
of the treaty. In their wisdom the high contracting parties have 
seen fit to reverse the whole order of rights. They have subordinated 
the navigation rights to the sanitary rights, so if you make a sanitary 
case it would be an absolute estoppel. 

Mr. Staunton. I did not think of that, Mr. Powell, and I thank 
you for calling attention to it. I hope that in its decision the com¬ 
mission will not limit itself by holding my case to such feeble argu¬ 
ments as I may address to you. I hope you may take into considera¬ 
tion also those points that are apparent to yourselves. The first 
thing is the sanitary condition, ana I ask you to make that cardinal 
principle predominant in your decision. 

I thank you, gentlemen, and I can only repeat the sentiment that 
has been uttered by those who have preceded me as to the respect 
and feeling we have toward this commission. 

A recess was then taken until 2.30 o’clock p. m. 

AFTER RECESS. 

Pursuant to the taking of the recess, the commission met at 2.30 
o’clock p. m., all the members being present. 

ARGUMENT OF MR. F. A. HOUGH, ON BEHALF OF THE 
TOWNSHIP OF AMHERSTBURG, ONTARIO. 

Mr. Hough. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the International 
Joint Commission, I have the honor to appear before you on behalf 
of the municipality of the town of Amherstburg, a municipality 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


191 


which will be affected perhaps more than any other by the con¬ 
struction of this dike should it receive your approval. The history 
of the great work which is now nearing completion is well known to 
all of us, or should be by this time, and if the portion of the work 
which we know as the Dry Cut had been constructed in the same 
manner as the rest of the work in the river, that is by removing the 
excavation as it was dug by submarine drilling and dredging, this 
commission would not be sitting here to-day to deal with the question 
that has been submitted to it. The ingenuity of man, however, 
discovered a new way of doing this particular portion of the work, 
by building a cofferdam, pumping it out, and then digging the stone 
as you would in a quarry. When that plan was first devised the 
engineers did not provide for any compensation which might result, 
and they did not consider, or did not provide for, any cross currents. 
It was not until the work was well under way, until the cofferdam 
was constructed, that it became apparent that something in the 
nature of the proposal which has been submitted to you would be 
required. 

The first suggestion was that it would be necessary to secure com¬ 
pensation, and that was the only suggestion, I think, for a long time. 
The question of compensation that has been brought before you in 
the course of this hearing has become a negligible one. It has been 
shown by the engineers and by the evidence that the level of the water 
is practically the same now as it was for the 48 years during which 
the records were kept prior to the opening of this dam. It has been 
shown further by the evidence that if it were a question of compen¬ 
sation, and if compensation were necessary, there are other places 
more suitable than this, or at least as suitable, and where compensa¬ 
tion could be obtained more cheaply than that in the position pro¬ 
posed. I may, therefore, fairly eliminate from anything that I may 
have to say the question of compensation. 

The only other point is that of the effect of the cross current which 
is said to exist and which undoubtedly does exist across the new 
Livingstone Channel. The most absurd report got abroad about the 
nature and effect of that cross current long before the channel was 
completed. Every vessel man on the chain of lakes was afraid of 
the Livingstone Channel before it was ready to be opened for navi¬ 
gation, and when the time came to throw it open a fleet of wrecking 
tugs gathered there as vultures waiting to pounce upon the first 
unfortunate ship that should go through that channel the moment 
she piled up on the rocks. Everybody expected that to happen by 
virtue of what had been announced and predicted, from what source 
I am not here to say. 

The William Livingstone passed through the channel in safety and 
the people began to wonder if all this stuff that had been said about 
the danger of this channel was nonsense after all. Some of the wise- 
reads said, “The William Livingstone is light; wait until the Corey 
homes along; she is loaded, and that will show the effect of the cur- 
cent.” The Corey passed through in perfect safety, and another 
and then another boat passed through in perfect safety. Then the 
belief of the public and of the people who were interested in this 
great project regarding the dangers that were said to exist as a 
result of the current at this point was very materially shaken. 


192 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


That brings me to the first question propounded to your commis¬ 
sion, as to whether or not, under the circumstances, this dike is 
necessary. I do not wish to repeat any of the argument, that has 
been made by my learned friends who have spoken before me, but it 
would seem to me that from the fact that from the 19th of October, 
when the channel was opened, until the 15th of December, 1,227 
vessels passed through that canal, ships of all kinds, some of them 
with tows and some with as many as three barges in tow, all in perfect 
safety, would be almost an answer to the question of whether or not 
that dike is necessary. It was brought out in the evidence that at 
the upper end of the Limekiln Crossing the mean current passing 
down was 2 \ miles an hour. At that point the channel takes a turn 
at an angle of 20 degrees. There is a very strong current setting in 
to the eastward there, a current which all mariners have been aware 
of ever since that channel was opened. Nobody has proposed to 
build a wall there to offset the current that sets in at that point. 
Mariners know that that current sets in at that point and they are 
prepared for it in the same way that they will know, and probablv 
know how, that a current sets in across this Livingstone Channel, 
and they will prepare for that, and we found that the gentlemen 
who had navigated the channel were quite easily able to do without 
having had any experience with it at all. 

There were other points equally as dangerous in the chain of lakes 
that were referred to, and in none of them have I ever heard of any 
dike or dam being constructed for the purpose of offsetting a cross 
current. Vessels are equipped with steam power and with rudders, 
and they are manned by competent men who are compelled to take a 
course in navigation. Those men have to study these currents and 
to study the charts, and the 3 r have to obtain a license for the navigation 
of vessels before they are permitted to take charge of them. A man 
who can not avoid an ordinary circumstance such as exists here has no 
business to be abroad on the high seas. 

Now I submit that nothing has been shown here which would 
establish the fact that this current can not be avoided by the ordinary 
means of navigation; and if it can, then the result must follow that 
this dike is not necessary for the purpose of making that channel safe. 
We must admit, of course, that it would be a very nice thing to have 
absolutely still water throughout the whole chain of lakes if such a 
thing were possible, but.it is not possible, and it is not necessary at 
this point any more than at any other point. 

That brings us to the second portion of the first question, and that 
is as to the desirability of this dilie. In this connection it becomes 
important to consider what the dike will be and what effect it will 
have. If it were to have no effect except that for which it is intended 
to be constructed, then there would be no argument against its con¬ 
struction, but the evidence here is that it will have another effect. 
The evidence here shows that what that effect may be is as yet doubt¬ 
ful. The fact that that effect is doubtful is one of the strongest 
arguments, I submit, why the dike should not be permitted to be 
built in this position at the present time. 

If you gentlemen will draw a straight line along the line to be taken 
by the proposed dike, another straight line along the east side of the 
channel, and then a straight line on each side of the channel opposite 
Amherstburg, you will find a drawing of a domestic utensil known 





THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


193 


as a funnel. The sides of that funnel are about 300 feet long. The 
upper end of the channel is about 300 feet across, and the spout of the 
funnel is about 1,000 feet across. That is a layman’s way of arguing 
that the current out of the spout must be greater than it is up above. 
At the present time one side of the funnel is open. The evidence 
shows that upward of 40 per cent, nearly half, of the water passing 
down east of the cofferdam goes through west of Bois Blanc Island. 
This dike, which will be in the neighborhood of 300 feet long and which 
will be a pile of stone, will, notwithstanding the 300-foot opening, 
close the side of the funnel and divert the whole of that water into 
the Amherstburg Channel. The engineers suggest that the 300-foot 
opening will have some shelf. If it does, then the 300-foot opening 
is going to be dangerous. So I take it as an engineering work that it 
will be necessary, and they will devise a means by wings of preventing 
any appreciable current passing through that 300-foot gap. Then 
all that water which is now penned in that 300 feet of space will be 
shot through the mouth of the funnel at Amherstburg, which is only 
a thousand feet wide. 

Now the question arises as to what the result will be. The engi¬ 
neers have told us that the increase in volume of water through that 
channel by reason of the dike will be 13,000 cubic feet per second. I 
have no quarrel with them in that respect. The engineers practically 
agree on that subject, and if they say 13,000 feet per second I am 
prepared to believe it. But what I do say is this: The gentlemen 
who have viewed this question from an engineering standpoint are 
not in the same position to say what the result of that will be, so far as 
affects the practical navigation of that channel, as men who are en¬ 
gaged in that end of the work. When it comes to a question of the 
practical navigation of a boat and the effect that a certain given 
current will have on that boat, the man that has been through the 
mill is in a better position to speak regarding that than the man who 
has been in college. It is one thing to talk about handling a steam¬ 
boat and it is another thing to handle it. The evidence of the marine 
men here as to the effect of this dike on the Amherstburg Channel was 
that it would eject a volume of water around the head of Bois Blanc 
Island right across the Amherstburg Channel, and in their opinion it 
would render that channel dangerous and more difficult to navigate. 
There can be only one object in any of these works. That object we 
all agree on. It is to make both channels as efficient as it is possible 
to make them. There is no man here or anywhere who would wish 
to make the Livingstone Channel safe at the expense of the Amherst¬ 
burg Channel. If that dike will destroy, or to a certain extent render 
more dangerous, the Amherstburg Channel, then what is to be gained, 
even though it does improve the Livingstone Channel ? That matter 
has been brought before you gentlemen and has been sworn to by 
practical men of years of experience. Their evidence is not mere 
guesswork. It is the result of their experience. And even though 
it should be mere guess, is not that enough to stay the erection of this 
dike without any argument that I need put up ? 

The effect that it has on the Livingston Channel is, of course, of 
much greater importance than the effect it may have on the town of 
Amherstburg, which I am here to represent. That is a matter which 
86342—13-13 


194 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


interests the commerce of the two countries. It interests Amherst- 
burg only in so far as the result of injuring the Amherstburg Channel 
will injure Amherstburg. The water front of Amherstburg stretches 
down the east side of that channel for upward of a mile. That, 
according to the evidence, in the season of navigation will be ren¬ 
dered useless to boats bound down. They will be unable to stop at 
the port of Amherstburg. The result will be inconvenience and loss 
and damage to the mercantile and other interests in that town. It 
will be dangerous and difficult for the boats to stop bound up in the 
current which the marine men say will be so increased as to render it 
dangerous and difficult. 

That brings me to the other feature which necessarily follows, and 
that is the effect this will have on the water front and on the docks 
in the town of Amherstburg at the opening and close of navigation 
when the river is full of ice. When the current comes down more 
swiftly, as it undoubtedly will, it brings what is floating in the current 
down at the increased rate. I have before me an account of the first 
ice jam that Amherstburg ever had, which occurred on January 12, 
1913. The account as it appeared in the newspaper is as follows: 

AMHERSTBURG HAS FIRST SERIOUS ICE JAM—DRILL BOATS CARRIED AWAY WHEN ICE, 
6 INCHES THICK, GOES ON RAMPAGE. 

Amherstburg, January 13. 

The burg had its first heavy ice jam in several years shortly before 3 o’clock 
Sunday morning when the ice, which was from 6 to 8 inches thick, went on the ram¬ 
page. Heavy ice piled up along the shore and along Boise Blanc Park, while a drill 
boat owned by M. Sullivan, of Detroit, broke away from her moorings and was carried 
by the ice almost into Lake Erie. A tug wen t to its rescue and after hard work brought 
the drill boat back. The drill boat Destroyer , also of the Sullivan fleet, broke loose 
and crashed into the drill boat Gladiator. It is said that the Gladiator is leaking. The 
waterworks dock is also badly damaged by the heavy ice floes. The Pittsburgh Coal 
Fueling steamer Snowden sprung a leak at her dock at the lower end of Bois Blanc Park. 
The boat is said not to be in serious shape. 

That is the result of the building of the cofferdam; the closing up of 
the greater part of the channel between Stoney Island and the main 
shore by the work which has been heretofore carried on in building 
the Livmgstone Channel. That was a result which was either unfore¬ 
seen by the engineers who had charge of that work or it was treated 
as a matter of indifference. If that is the result now with the coffer¬ 
dam extending down half-way through that stretch of water, what 
will be the result if it is extended, as it is to be by this dike, across the 
whole of that water ? It seems to me that it is not necessary to say 
that if ice goes down that river at all it must do damage to the water 
fronts, to the docks, and to the boathouses and the property stretched 
along the front of the town of Amherstburg and down into the town¬ 
ship of Malden. 

The next important objection that Amherstburg has to offer is the 
effect that this work will have on the pollution of her water supply, 
and I think perhaps that is one of the most important questions that 
men have to deal with at any period. The report made before the 
annual convention of the presidents of life insurance associations on 
December 6 last showed that the typhoid rate in Detroit is higher 
than that in any other of the 10 leading cities of the United States. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 195 

Dr. Allan J. McLaughlin, of the United States Public-Health Service, 
in addressing that convention, said: 

No single measure in reducing typhoid fever on a large scale approaches the effect 
of substituting a safe for a polluted water supply. 

A statement such as that coming from so eminent an authority 
should be sufficient argument for the importance of this branch of 
the question. It has been shown to you conclusively that addi¬ 
tional pollution will be brought down across Amherstburg’s water 
front by the construction of this dike. It has been shown conclusively 
by experts who have testified that that will increase the danger to 
Amherstburg’s water supply; that it will increase the injury to the 
health of the people of Amherstburg. Again, without wishing to 
repeat argument, I want to impress upon you as strongly as I can 
what my learned friend, Mr. Staunton, said on that subject. It 
appears to me that this dike under the treaty between the two 
countries would be and should be held an illegal work. 

I want to remind you that Amherstburg has been using a chloro- 
nation system, and the evidence shows the effect of the increased 
pollution being directed to the Amherstburg intake pipe on that 
chloronation system will be to render it more inefficient. 

The next objection that I have to present to you is the fact that this 
stretch of 300 feet of water is now navigated very largely by owners of 
small craft, motor boats, and by others who use the channel for vari¬ 
ous purposes of business and pleasure. I submit that the man going 
east and west is entitled to consideration as much as the man who 
wants to go north and south. To say that this 300-foot gap will ob¬ 
viate that objection is not correct. A 300-foot gap half a mile or so 
against a heavy current upstream is not much of an inducement to a 
man with a small boat. 

The last objection, and one perhaps which as against the onrush of 
commerce of the present day may be given the least weight, but one 
to which I consider we should give due consideration, is the fact that 
this unsightly pile of stone 300 feet long will destroy one of the most 
beautiful stretches of river that there is in, I would almost say, the 
world to-day, and this at a time when the Government of Canada is 
considering the establishment at Fort Malden, just opposite the loca¬ 
tion of this proposed dike, of a memorial national park in commemo¬ 
ration of 100 years of peace between the two countries. 

That, gentlemen, is all I have to say as regards the second portion 
of the first question. It seems to me that with these objections, 
some of which we know are well founded and all of which are en¬ 
titled to consideration, the dike can not be held to be desirable. 

I then come to the second question before the commission, ami 
that is, putting it tersely, if not, why not ? It is not for the town of 
Amherstburg to submit any alternative, but the engineers who have 
planned tins great work will be able to devise some other means of 
overcoming this little difficulty which is said to exist here other than 
the one which is at present under consideration. It has been shown 
that opening 300 feet of the Livingstone Channel diminished the cross 
current by practically one-half. If the opening of the 300-foot chan¬ 
nel has diminished that cross current to that extent, it would seem 
reasonable that the opening of the channel to the full width of 450 
feet would also have very material effect on it. I asked Col. Patrick 


196 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


what that effect would be, and he said he would not care to venture 
an opinion. If Col. Patrick can not give an opinion as to what the 
effect will be, then I submit that it is too early to consider this appli¬ 
cation. I submit that we should wait and see the effect on the 
opening of that channel, and when I say that we should await this 
effect I do not mean that you gentlemen should wait, but I mean that 
this application should wait. If I may be permitted to express my 
opinion on it, I think that the application on the merits, as it has 
been presented to-day, might very easily be decided to-day and de¬ 
cided that it is not either necessary or desirable. With the engineer 
expressing himself in doubt as to the effect that the opening of the 
channel to the full width of 450 feet may have, it seems to me that 
this application should not be favorably considered. 

I do not intend to make alternative propositions. As I say, I do 
not consider that that is up to either me or my client, but it has 
been suggested here in evidence that a dike on either side of the 
channel as at present existing would answer the purposes. If such 
a dike should be necessary to overcome these cross currents, a dike 
located on either side of the canal would not be subject to many of 
the objections that I have urged. 

Those, gentlemen, are the points that I have to present to you on 
behalf of the town of Amherst burg. I thank you for the considera¬ 
tion that you have given their presentation, and though the position 
of the town may seem to be much inferior to that of other claims 
that there may be upon you, I know that you will give our repre¬ 
sentations no less your careful consideration. 

ARGUMENT OF MR. REEVES T. STRICKLAND, ASSISTANT TO 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WASHINGTON, D. C., ON BEHALF 

OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Mr. Strickland. I appreciate very much the honor of addressing 
the commission, and I feel that I shall be unable to lighten its labors 
very much. Before beginning my argument I should like to offer 
in evidence the act of Congress authorizing the construction of this 
dam and the works in this river. I also ask permission to read into 
the record a statement contained in a report oi the proceedings of the 
Lake Carriers’ Association, which was referred to yesterday. 

The Chairman. Before you do that, ought you not to accompany 
the act with the report wmch was expressly referred to in the act ? 

Mr. Strickland. That was offered by Col. Patrick yesterday. 

Mr. Streeter. Have you put into the case that legislation by 
which the former appropriations were made and the purposes* for 
which they were made, so that there will be before the commission 
a history of what has been done toward the improvement of the 
river ? 

Mr. Strickland. The chairman of the commission spoke to me 
about that on Monday, and I told him that I would furnish to the 
commission every act which is referred to in connection with this 
matter. 

Mr. Streeter. It may be understood that they are offered to tHe 
commission and are to be furnished later. 




THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


197 


Mr. Strickland. I wish to read into the record a portion of the 
report of the meeting recently held by the Lake Carriers’ Association, 
which was referred to yesterday. It reads as follows: 

Capt. Robinson. Yes. I think permanent lights on both sides of the channel 
■would be preferable to those lights. In regard to the current there I will say that 
this fall I went down there once, and it was blowing about 60 miles an hour, and I 
found the worst kind of a current after I had got out, so that the current went across 
the point. It carried me away to the eastward. I had the mate up with me. We 
were steering up the channel, and it threw me way off onto the black stakes; I was 
way to the eastward of it. I had to keep pulling up, and right there is where we found 
our worst current. As I said before, it was blowing a gale of at least 60 miles an hour. 
The channel itself, I think, is straight. I had an idea that in thick weather there 
would be lots of trouble there, but I think the channel is perfectly straight, and if 
you go in the middle of the channel and get your course out, and if there was no 
current—— 

Mr. Livingstone. Pardon me, but the channel is absolutely straight. 

Capt. Robinson. Yes; I will say that we steered the same course when we were in 
the middle of the channel; all the way out. 

Capt. Allen. That is, without the currents. 

Capt. Robinson. Without the currents. If we didn’t have the current to contend 
with it would be all right. I have been under the impression that if we got down 
there and it got smoky and foggy that some of you fellows with deep-draft boats 
might get into trouble. I am on a small boat. I don’t worry a great deal. 

Mr. Streeter. Is that published in the printed report of the Lake 
Carriers’ Association, Mr. Livingstone? 

Mr. Livingstone. It has not been printed yet. That was a meet¬ 
ing of the committee on aids to navigation, which was held in 
Detroit on January 13. Capt. Robinson, a portion of whose testi¬ 
mony Mr. Strickland has just read, sails one of the Soo Line boats, 
v Mr. Strickland. I understand that the reference to the commis¬ 
sion was through a letter from the Secretary of State of the United 
States, dated October 16, 1912, in which there were referred to the 
International Joint Commission for examination and report the facts 
and circumstances of the particular questions referred. Briefly, 
those questions are, first, whether a dike is necessary for the improve¬ 
ment or safety of navigation, and, second, whether the proposed dike 
would be sufficient. This entire matter was referred to a special 
board consisting of five engineers of the Corps of Engineers of the 
United States Army to examine and report upon the Livingstone 
Channel and the Detroit River and to report upon the probable effect 
of widening said channel in aid of navigation. The board held 
meetings and viewed the situation from many points. It reported a 
strong current to exist between the cofferdam and Bois Blanc Island, 
and that as the current is nearly at right angles to the axis of the 
Livingstone Channel it might, unless restrained, cause difficulty in 
the navigation of that waterway; therefore, the current should be 
interrupted, and the simplest method of attaining that object is by 
means of a dam extending from the southeast angle of the present 
cofferdam to Bois Blanc Island. 

Mr. Streeter. What was the date of that report, Mr. Strickland ? 

Mr. Strickland. The exact date of the report is October 28, 1909. 
Subsequently an additional report was made which is dated January 
19, 1910. In the latter report the board declared that the principal 
source of danger to both up and down bound commerce would be the 
cross current, which in somewhat modified form will exist above the 
head of Bois Blanc Island. To eliminate this cross current the board 
has recommended the construction of the closing dam. 


198 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


The recommendation of said board should be given much consider¬ 
ation as to the necessity for the proposed dike or dam, as well as the 
opinion of Col. Patrick, who has gone deeply into the subject and who 
so ably testified as to the necessity before this commission on Monday, 
establishing the accuracy of the opinion of the Board of Engineers. 

The contusions reached by Col. Patrick and by Mr. Stewart on most 
all points agree, and, if I understood Mr. Stewart correctly, it appears 
by his testimony that while he did not see any necessity for the pro¬ 
posed dam, he did not think it would be in any way injurious. The 
testimony of Mr. Dixon, the assistant engineer, was to the same effect 
as that of Col. Patrick, that the dam was a necessity to correct the 
cross current, and if built would be sufficient for compensatory 
purposes. 

As regards the question of sewage, the testimony has shown that 
sewage coming from Detroit and the cities on the American side follows 
very closely the American shore, and that the sewage from the 
Canadian side follows very closely the Canadian shore. The building 
of the proposed dam will create no different situation than has hereto¬ 
fore existed, the sewage from each side of the river remaining close to 
the shore and the ice being largely governed by the wind. It is 
barely possible that it will go more to the Canadian shore, and yet I 
think the testimony shows clearly that it would follow the Trenton 
Channel, and that there would be really no fear of any more sewage 
going in that direction than has gone heretofore. 

As I recollect the testimony m regard to the question of ice, it 
appears that some years ago there was an ice jam and that since that 
time there have been no ice jams in the river except the one mentioned 
in the newspaper a few months ago which Mr. Hough, of Amherstburg, 
referred to. It appears that the ice will be largely controlled by the 
winds. If the winds set in one direction, the ice will go that way. 
If it happens to be in the other direction, the ice will go with it, and I 
can not see that the ice question is a serious one in connection with 
the dam which is proposed to be erected. 

The principal feature is that of navigation on the Detroit River. 
There are certain seasons of the year when there are excursion vessels 
on the river—June, July, and August. At other seasons of the year 
it is mainly confined to commerce and freight traffic, which has 
grown to a large extent. The downbound traffic of the Detroit 
River, as appears by some of the documents furnished, is 76 per cent 
of the total traffic, involving a carrying capacity of 75,000,000 tons of 
freight. During the eight months’ navigation season of 1912 the 
records show that 75,000,000 tons of freight were carried down the 
Detroit River. The value of this freight is about $800,000,000. One 
and one-half per cent of the cash value of this freight carried in a 
single season would amount to more than the United States has spent 
on the lower Detroit River in 39 years. 

Channels excavated to mean water conditions frequently have less 
than their project depth. A decrease of depth of a few inches causes 
loss to shipping interests by their inability to load their vessels to the 
draft otherwise possible, and it is stated that every inch of draft thus 
lost means a lessening of the cargoes carried in the largest vessels of 
from 60 to 100 tons. Furthermore such a lowering upon Livingstone 
Channel means increased slope in the Detroit River and more rapid 
emptying of the reservoir lakes above. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


199 


Delays to shipping may produce great loss. Freight is carried 
more cheaply by Lake steamer than any other way. The average 
freight rate in 1911 was seven-tenths mill per ton-mile. In other 
words, Lake steamers carried one ton over 14 miles for 1 cent. 
This freight rate is just about one-half of what it was 20 years ago, 
showing the benefit that has resulted from improvements made by 
the United States. 

The matter of this improvement by putting in this dam and the 
creation of the channel has been under consideration for nearly three 
years. It was studied thoroughly by a board of engineers and recom¬ 
mendations for a dike were made based upon observation and careful 
calculation. Observations since the opening of the cofferdam 
practically establish the accuracy of the board’s calculations and 
predictions. Independent measurements and calculations made by 
United States and Canadian engineers agree closely. Engineers 
agree that the building of the dike would increase the mean velocity 
near Amherstburg not more than one-half mile per hour. This can 
not affect shipping injuriously. 

A greater portion of the discharge of the river will be carried by the 
channels to the west of the Limekiln Crossing than at present, after 
the channel is completed. The only difference of conclusions between 
the Canadian and American engineers is that one Canadian thinks 
that if the flow through the Chicago Canal were decreased, nearly 
normal conditions would be restored in the Detroit River, even if 
the channel were opened to greater width; the United States engineers 
hold that there should be local compensation for such a disturbance 
of local regimen if the channel were opened to a greater width. Attor¬ 
neys and engineers for the Chicago Drainage Canal are now urging 
that observed lowering of lake levels are due to improvements made 
in the Detroit River rather than to the flow taken through their 
canal. It would be unwise to omit supplying compensation for any 
work done in the lower Detroit River. 

It would seem from the testimony of all the witnesses and from the 
report of the special board of engineers that the construction of a 
dam is necessary, and that the proposed one would accomplish the 
desired effect without any serious harm to any interests. 

I thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Livingstone. I would like to ask permission, on behalf of the 
Lake Carriers’ Association, to file a written statement a little later on. 

The Chairman. You may file such a statement and you may make 
an oral statement now if you desire to do so. How soon would you 
be ready to file your written statement? 

Mr. Livingstone. How soon would you like to have it? 

The Chairman. Within 10 days. 

Mr. Livingstone. Very well. 

Mr. Streeter. There is another tiling I would like to suggest to 
Mr. Livingstone. It must be that there is somewhere in print an 
official statement of the traffic on this river, a table showing the 
number of vessels, the amount of tonnage carried each year, going 
back, say, for 12 or 15 years, and the percentage of increase of traffic 
each year. 

Mr. Livingstone. There is such a table. My annual report each 
year has shown that. I wish to make that statement with this 
explanation: You understand that all the tonnage which passes 


200 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


through the Soo River we have the official record of. What passes 
through the Canadian locks the Canadian people keep account of; 
what passes through the American locks our United States officials 
keep an account of. I shall try to obtain that information. 

The tonnage which passed through the Soo Canal in 1912 exceeded 
the tonnage which passed through in 1911 by over 10,000,000 tons. 
The increase last year was more than the entire tonnage which passed 
through the Soo Canal in 1890. In other words, the traffic on the 
Lakes has grown with such rapidity that what has been the dream 
of to-day has been almost the reality of to-morrow. 

I did not intend to allude to the question of pollution, and I would 
not presume to place my opinion against the opinion of the experts 
who have made that question their life work, but I want to call the 
attention of the commission to this fact regarding the pollution of 
the waters; you understand we have two channels to the Detroit 
River; one commences up by Grosse Island Lighthouse in Detroit 
River. I want to submit to the commission for their consideration 
that naturally the current is just as rapid there as it is on the easterly 
side, and naturally a large amount of sewage which comes down from 
Detroit and above must pass around that American channel. It 
strikes that, of course, before it gets to the Limekiln. 

Mr. Streeter. Do you happen to know, or is there any published 
record, of the relation of the tonnage passing through the Soo and 
through the Detroit River with that which passes through the canal ? 

Mr. Livingstone. About three and a half times, according to the 
last report which I have. In the Detroit River we have only 240 
days of navigation, and there they have 365 days. I wish to call 
attention, Mr. Streeter, however, to one point in connection with 
that matter of the tonnage. On the Detroit River here we figure 
only the actual tons which are carried. In other words, if a boat 
goes up light we do not count that tonnage, but on the Soo Canal 
that is their way of collecting tolls; they count the registered tonnage 
of the boat. If the boat is fight it is just the same as if she is loaded; 
they give you the full registered tonnage of the boat. 

Air. Streeter. Is there any record of the actual tonnage carried 
through the Soo Canal ? 

Mr. Livingstone. The Department of Commerce and Labor would 
have such information. 

Mr. Casgrain. This statement that you wish to put in, Mr. Living¬ 
stone, will it bear upon new facts or simply comment upon the facts 
which have been discussed here ? 

Mr. Livingstone. It will cover some additional facts that we have 
not already put in. If we had known the scope that the hearings 
would take, we would have put them in before. 

Mr. White. I wish to suggest that such a statement should be 
furnished to all counsel concerned, and that they should be given an 
opportunity of answering them. 

The Chairman. When Mr. Livingstone sends his statement to the 
secretaries of the two sections of the commission, copies can be sent 
to each of the representatives interested. 

Mr. White. And we can then have an opportunity of criticizing 
such statement. 




THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


201 


Mr. Turner. If this paper which Col. Livingstone wants to file is 
to set forth any new facts, the other side should have an opportunity 
not only to see it but to answer it. 

Mr. White. It may be very possible that Mr. Livingstone’s state¬ 
ment may not be of such a nature as to require any answer, but we 
ought to be given the opportunity of answering it if it does require one. 

The Chairman. Of course, the commission desires to give the 
greatest latitude for all sides to present their views. 

Mr. Turner. I think the time should be limited in which the 
statements shall be presented, and the time when the other parties 
interested shall reply. I should think 10 days should be given Mr. 
Livingstone in which to submit his written statement and then the 
other parties should be allowed 10 days in which to file their replies. 

Mr. Livingstone. I do not propose to touch the question of the - 1 
pollution of waters at all. It was merely for the purpose of trying 
to garner up certain things. There are some matters pertaining to 
navigation and questions of that kind that I should like to touch on. 

The Chairman. It is understood, then, that it is the sense of the 
commission that you shall file your statement within 10 days from 
to-day, Mr. Livingstone. Copies of that statement will then be fur¬ 
nished to representatives of the Dominion Government and the pro¬ 
vincial government and to private interests, and they shall have 10 
days from the date of the receipt of the statement to nle their replies. 
That will be considered as the order of the commission. 

Gentlemen, that will conclude the hearings at this time with regard 
to the subject of the Livingstone Channel. 

(The commission thereupon adjourned.) 


SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY MR. LIVINGSTONE. 


Detroit, Mich., March 7, 1913. 

Hon. James Tawney, 

Chairman International Joint Commission, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: On careful reflection I have decided to introduce no new matter in the 
following statement, but simply, if possible, to bring out more clearly and forcibly the 
information covering the points that were introduced and discussed at the hearing of 
your commission held in Detroit, February 17, 18, and 19, 1913, on the question of 
building a remedial dam or dike at the Livingstone Channel in Detroit River, and in 
so doing I think a brief recapitulation of the inception and growth of commerce on 
the Great Lakes will be of some value in connection with the subject. 

In 1843 Senator Norvell, first Senator from Michigan, introduced a bill in the United 
States Senate to grant lands for the building of St. Mary’s Canal. Henry Clay, the 
silver-tongued orator of Kentucky, one of the foremost statesmen of the Nation, bitterly 
opposed the bill, declaring that any money or grants made for that purpose would be 
utterly wasted, and pronounced this great waterway beyond the farthest bounds of 
civilization, if not in the moon. 

While statistics are naturally dry, it is somewhat of a necessity to use some of them 
in showing or demonstrating the tremenduous increase in the tonnage of the Great 
Lakes during the past 57 years. 

In 1855, 57 years ago, the total tonnage of Lake Superior, not only in cargo, but the 
ships that carried it as well, could be comfortably stowed away in the holds of many 
of the large steamers that have come into commission during these recent years and 
that are daily passing through the canal. The movement of freight to and from 
Lake Superior previous to the opening of the State canal in 1855 was entirely by 
boat to Sault Ste. Marie, where the cargoes were unloaded, then taken across the 
portage, 1 mile in length, then reloaded aboard the boats. In 1851 about 12,600 
tons passed over the tramway portage. 

During the 57 years the canals have been in commission the yearly traffic has in¬ 
creased from the minimum of 14,503 tons to the enormous maximum in the year 1912 
of 72,472,676 tons, of which 32,824,815 tons were carried through the United States 
canal and 39,647,861 tons through the Canadian canal. This movement is 10,109,458 
tons greater than in 1910, the previous high record. This increase was almost as 
much as the entire tonnage which passed through the St. Mary’s Canals in 1892. 

Twenty-two thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight ships passed through the 
canals at Sault Ste. Marie in 1912. Of this number 14,916 used the United States 
Canal and 7,862 used the Canadian canal. It will be seen that while the number of 
vessels using the Canadian canal is only half the number using the American canal, 
yet the Canadian canal carried the greater portion of the freight. This is accounted 
for by reason of the greater draft of water available in the Canadian lock than in the 
American, although there are already a number of vessels on the Lakes whose beam 
is too great to permit them to use the Canadian channel, and this number is yearly 
increasing. 

The tonnage which passed through Detroit River in the year 1912 was approxi¬ 
mately 95,000,000 tons, which exceeds all previous years. Navigation was open 
from April 19 to December 16, a period of 242 days. Twenty-five thousand two 
hundred and thirty-eight vessels passed through the Land Kiln Crossing and 1,227 
vessels through the Livingstone Channel, making a total of 26,465 vessels. The 
Livingstone Channel, however, was only opened to navigation October 19, and vessels 
were not required to use it until November 10. This is an average of one vessel every 
13£ minutes during the entire period of 242 days. Approximating the tonnage through 
Detroit River at 95,000,000 tons, the traffic would average 272 tons during every 
minute of the 24 hours of every day during the entire season of navigation. 

As showing the enormous growth of the tonnage of the Lakes during recent years, 
it may not be amiss to state that it was not until 1892 that the tonnage passing through 
the St. Mary’s Canals exceeded 10,000,000 tons, the total tonnage passing through in 
that year being 11,214,333 tons. The tonnage passing through the canal in 1895 was 
15,062,580. Five years later, in 1900, it had increased to 25,643,073 tons. Five years 

202 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


203 


later, in 1905, it had increased to 44,270,680 tons. In 1912, a period of seven years 
later, the tonnage had increased 28,201,996 tons over 1905, a total of 72,472,676 for 1912. 

To be added to this is all the traffic shipped from Lake Michigan, Lake Huron 
ports, which include Chicago, Milwaukee, Escanaba, Green Bay, and all intermediate 
ports on these lakes—over 90,000,000 tons. 

The value of freight tonnage passing through Detroit River in 1912 was considerably 
over $800,000,000. One and one-half per cent of the value of this freight for the 
year 1912 alone would more than equal all the expenditures on the lower Detroit 
River in 39 years. 

The average rate of freight for the year 1912 was seven-tenths of a mill per ton per 
mile. In other words, we carried 1 ton of freight 14 miles for 1 cent. The lowest 
rail rate we have available is approximately 4 mills per ton per mile—over five times 
the water rate. When it is estimated that a reduction of 1 mill per ton on the rail¬ 
roads of the country effects a saving of over $800,000,000 to the shippers of freight, it 
demonstrates the fact that our waterways have acted as a most powerful regulator of 
rates, and the value of this restrictive power can not be overestimated. 

Such frieght rates are possible only when boats are able to run regularly and with¬ 
out delays, with a minimum of risk, and low insurance rates. An accident blocking 
any of the channels may result in serious delays and loss to many vessels. Hence, 
necessity for minimizing the dangers and difficulties of navigation in these waters. 

The average cargoes for the past 18 years—that is, from 1895 to 1912, inclusive—• 
show that they have increased from 1,800 gross tons per cargo in 1895 to 7,740 tons 
in 1912. 

It is found in active practice that the carrying capacity of the largest bulk freight¬ 
ers upon the Great Lakes has been as much as 113 tons per inch of reduced loading 
depth per single one-way trip. This, graduated to the smallest vessels in the bulk 
freight trade, would, upon a very conservative basis, average 75 tons per inch per 
one-way trip, 150 tons per inch per round trip, if loaded both ways, as they frequently 
are, which would mean a loss of 3,300 tons per vessel for a season per inch, and so, for 
467 vessels (our fleet), an approximate loss of 1,550,000 tons per inch. So, with freight 
rates averaging 40 cents per ton net, the loss to our vessels would, therefore, aggregate 
approximately $616,000 for each inch of the diminished draft. 

It has been suggested that because there are variations through cycles of time and 
from local barometrical forces, and because these have to be met, therefore a perma¬ 
nent reduction of the level of half a foot or a foot or more may not be complained of. 
This we think sophistical and without merit. These same conditions and effects 
may be expected with the levels permanently reduced as the present basis with which 
we have to reckon. 

I inclose herewith clippings from my annual report for 1912, pages 120 to 125, 
inclusive, which give the names, length, and tonnage of all bulk freighters in our 
association constructed since the year 1902. 

My object in going into these statistics is for the purpose of demonstrating and 
emphasizing the fact that there is no other navigable stream on the face of the globe 
that is comparable with the tremendous volume of tonnage which passes through the 
Detroit River. For instance, the far-famed Suez Canal, of which so much has been 
said and published; the official report shows that the tonnage through the Suez Canal 
for 1911 was 18,324,794 net tons, and that for the first 11 months of 1912—that is, up 
to December 1—was 18,610,548 net tons, which shows that the amount of tonnage 
passing through our Sault Ste. Marie canals was over four times the volume of the 
Suez Canal. 

There are two other facts to be borne in mind in connection with this. First, they 
have the full 365 days in the year of navigation against our 240—only two-thirds of the 
year; second, they report the full registered tonnage (whether full loaded, partially 
loaded, or in ballast), while in our canals we report the actual amount of freight car¬ 
ried, regardless of registered tonnage. 

When the Poe Lock was constructed, the dimensions of which were 800 feet in 
length and 100 feet in width, it was planned to lock five boats through. Now, only 
one of our modern vessels can be locked through. We are now building two new locks 
at Sault, each of 1,350 feet in length, which is 350 feet greater than the locks at the 
Panama Canal, which are 1,000 feet. 

After due consideration Congress appropriated the money for the proposed dike. 
This was done after a report had been made to Congress by a board of engineers who 
gave the matter thorough study. 

These facts alone are sufficient to establish the necessity of the dike and of cutting 
off the cross current and of affording the needed compensation when the Livingstone 
Channel is opened to a greater width. 

The only real opposition to the proposed work comes from the town of Amherst- 
burg, and was based upon the three claims: (1) That the greater velocity of the 


204 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


current along the town front would injure its harbor and make navigation more dif¬ 
ficult; (2) The damage done by ice would be greater; (3) The amount of sewage in 
the water would be greater, and hence the health of the town would be endangered. 

All of the engineers who had studied this problem testified that the increase of 
the mean velocity in this vicinity would be not more than one-half mile per hour. 
Such a slight increase can not affect this harbor injuriously. 

The testimony established the fact that the direction of the winds governed the ice 
movement and that the building of the dike could not increase the danger from ice. 

I may also add in this connection that I have lived on the Detroit River since I 
was a boy and for 13 years owned a country place on the easterly bank of Grosse Isle 
directly fronting Livingstone Channel. With a more than average knowledge of the 
difficulties connected with navigation at this point and without claiming to have, 
so far as engineering knowledge is concerned, technical expert knowledge, yet, in 
my judgment, from a practical point of view, I am thoroughly convinced that the 
point selected for the building of the dike by our engineers is by far the best for the 
interests of navigation that could be selected for that purpose. 

Much of the opposition of Amherstburg is based upon the belief that all water now 
going between the cofferdam and Bois Blanc will flow past the town. This claim is 
incorrect. More than two-thirds of this water will be carried by channels to the 
west of the Limekeln Channel and only about one-third of it will go by Amherstburg. 

Most of Detroit’s sewage is necessarily carried by channels to west of Limekiln 
crossing. If any part of it is carried by Amherstburg, the dam will not increase the 
percentage of this sewage in the water and therefore can have no harmful effects. 

It was testified that the water supply of the town is now polluted and that typhoid 
fever and other water-borne diseases are prevalent. There was no convincing testi¬ 
mony that the building of the dike would make conditions any worse than they are 
now. Certainly the mere prohibition of the building of the dike will not lessen the 
amount of pollution which is now present in Amherstburg’s water, and it is evident 
that as time goes on the sewage from Canadian sources which follows close along the 
Canadian shore will increase in amount. 

In other words, with typhoid fever now prevalent in the town and directly traceable 
to the water supply, the town must take steps to eliminate this danger and it is in¬ 
conceivable that the building of the dike will add one dollar to the cost of the work 
which it is necessary for the town to do in order to supply pure water to its citizens. 

Filtration plants are used in many of the principal cities of the world; by the way, 
one at Washington, D. C. The highest authority exists for the proposition that it 
is not necessary to deplete the lake for such purposes, since, under the modern scien¬ 
tific methods the water taken from the lake can be returned less a small percentage 
of waste in practically unpolluted condition. 

If it is conceded that the present antiquated water system which is now being used 
at Amherstburg is entirely inadequate for the proper safeguarding the health of the 
community this evil instead of decreasing will be rapidly on the increase, as, for 
instance, a new town, to be called Pontiac, is being built a few miles above Amherst¬ 
burg on the Canadian side for the United States Steel Corporation. They have 
already commenced preliminary work for erecting large blast and steel furnaces, 
which will, of necessity, employ thousands of men and the expenditure of over 
$20,000,000. A large majority of the employees will reside in the immediate vicinity 
and the sewage and drainage will naturally empty into the Detroit River on the Cana¬ 
dian side and all of which must necessarily follow the Canadian side of the river 
directly in front of the town of Amherstburg. In addition to this, there are other large 
manufacturing institutions that are about to be built in the immediate vicinity 
running into the millions. This, added to the large and rapidly growing Canadian 
towns of Windsor and Walkerville, a few miles above this point, will, oi necessity, 
very largely increase the pollution of the water at Amherstburg, and it would seem 
to be imperative that the town of Amherstburg, as with many other cities of the 
lake districts, must provide, in the near future, a new, modern and up-to-date water¬ 
works system for sewage, health, and sanitation purposes and that the immense navi¬ 
gation interests of the Great Lakes should not, in any way, be restricted on account 
of their failure to take prompt action in adopting modern methods for health and 
sanitation. 

The immense benefit of lake transportation to the country at large by official sta¬ 
tistics show the saving in a single season over any other method of conveyance to 
exceed the entire expenditures of the Government since 1820, the beginning of lake 
improvements, and only the gravest possible question should be allowed to interfere 
in any way with the ease and facility of ships handling their cargoes within some per¬ 
missible time related to the expense of upkeep and operation and we fail to see why 
the objections raised to the building of the proposed dike at Livingstone Channel 
should prevail. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


205 


Uvea of its dtizens P " SyStemS f ° r the P rei *™tion of the health and 

Respectfully submitted. 

William Livingstone, 

President Lake Carriers' Association. 


Bulk freighters constructed on the Great Lakes. 


Name. 

Length 
over all. 

Carrying 
capacity. • 

1902. 

A. G. Brower. 

Feet. 

366 

366 

400 

436 

366 

390 

436 

Gross tons. 

4.800 

4.800 
5,500 
6,200 

4.800 
5,000 
6,200 
6,200 
6,200 

G. J. Grammer. 

E. N. Saunders. 

W. H. Gratwick. 

W. W. Brown. 

H. S. Wilkinson. 

James Gaylev. 

Bransford. 

436 

Etruria. , 

434 

Sonora. 

366 

4,800 

Sultana. 

366 

4,800 

5,500 

C. W. Watson. 

400 

F. W. Hart. 

400 

5,500 

Wm. Nottingham. 

400 

5,500 

A. E. Stewart. 

376 

5,000 

Luzon. 

366 

4,800 

Steel King. 

400 

5’ 500 

W. F. Fitch. 

366 

4,800 

W. C. Richardson. 

374 

4,900 

L. C. Smith. 

434 

6' 200 

J. M. Jenks. 

434 

6,200 

Harold B. Nye. 

400 

5,500 

Panay. 

366 

4,800 

J. H. Hoyt. 

376 

5,000 

Frank Goodyear. 

436 

6,200 

Moses Taylor. 

436 

6,200 

G. B. Leonard. 

400 

5,500 

H. B. Hawgood. 

434 

6j 200 

J. B. Cowle. 

440 

6,500 

Chas. Beattie. 

220 

2, 000 

Thos. Adams. 

1903. 

376 

5,000 ! 

James S. Keefe. 

255 

2,800 

W. H. Mack. 

374 

4,900 1 

H. W. Smith. 

434 

6,200 

Sinaloa. 

436 

6,200 

Robt. Wallace. 

255 

2,800 

Anna C. Minch. 

400 

5,500 

Monroe C. Smith. 

400 

5,500 

C. M. Warner. 

390 

5,250 

John Lambert. 

255 

2,800 

B. L. Smith. 

400 

5,500 

D. G. Kerr. 

468 

6,900 

Saxona. 

436 

6,200 

John Sharpies. 

255 

2; 800 

W. L. Smith. 

400 

5,500 

John Crerar. 

255 

2,800 

A. M. Marshall. 

255 

2,800 

H. G. Dalton. 

255 

2,800 

D. M. Clemson. 

468 

6,900 

Louis W oodraff. 

436 

6,200 

A. D. Davidson. 

255 

2,800 

G. C. Howe. 

255 

2,800 

S. N. Parent. 

255 

2,800 

James H. Reed. 

468 

6,900 

G. Watson French. 

376 

5,000 

Sonoma. 

436 

6,200 

F. W. Gilchrist. 

436 

6,200 

J. L. Weeks. 

436 

6,200 

R. L. Ireland. 

436 

6,200 

R. E. Schuck. 

436 

6,200 

P. P. Miller. 

375 

4,900 

Western Star. 

435 

6,200 

Perry G. Walker. 

436 

6,200 

J. C. Gilchrist. 

436 

6,200 


Name. 


Length 
over all. 


1903. 


Henry S. Sill. 

W isconsin. 

Edwin F. Holmes 

F. B. Squire. 

Winnebago. 

John O. Howard.. 

Geo. L. Craig. 

Kensington. 


Feet. 

436 

434 

434 

430 

234 

241 

404 

380 


1904. 

Umbria. 

Francis Widlar. 

Augustus B. Wolvin. 

Sahara. 

Martin Mullen. 

Ball Bros. 

R. W. England. 


440 

436 

560 

494 

436 

500 

376 


1905. 

Francis L. Robbins 

Jas. C. Wallace. 

Philip Minch.___ 

Syl vania. 

Amasa Stone. 

L. C. Hanna. 

E. H. Gary. 

S. M. Clement. 

Socapa. 

Lyman C. Smith... 

W. E. Corey. 

W. A. Paine. 

W. A. Rogers. 

Powell Stackhouse.. 

H. C. Frick. 

John Stanton. 

J. G. Butler, jr. 

Pendennis White... 

W. K. Bixby. 

James B. Wood. 

James E. Davidson. 

G. H. Russel. 

Hoover & Mason.... 
Peter White. 

F. J. Hecker. 

W. G. Mather.. 

Frank C. Ball. 

B. F. Jones. 

James P. Walsh_ 


400 

552 

500 

524 

545 

524 

569 

500 

524 

545 

569 

400 

545 

524 

569 

524 

545 

436 

500 

534 

524 

484 

524 

524 

484 

531 

550 

550 

500 


1906. 


Jos. Sellwood. 

545 

E. D. Carter. 

524 

C. S. Ilebard. 

524 

Loftus Cuddy. 

545 

Abraham Stearn. 

545 

D. Z. Norton. 

500 

Jno. Sherwin. 

534 

Harry Coulby. 

569 

Harvey D. Goulder. 

545 

J. Pierpont Morgan. 

600 

Henrv B. Smith. 

545 

Sir Thomas Shaugnessy. 

500 

E. J. Earling. 

545 

Chas. Weston. 

569 


Carrying 

capacity. 


Gross tons. 
6,200 
6,200 
6,200 
6,200 
2,100 
2,500 
5,600 
5,000 


6,500 

6,200 

10,000 

8,000 

6,200 

8,000 

5,000 


5,000 

10,000 

8,000 

9,000 

10,000 

9,000 

10.500 
8,000 
9,000 

10,000 
10,500 
8,000 
10,000 
9,000 
10,500 
9,000 
10,000 
6,200 
8,000 

9.500 
9,000 
7,600 
9,000 
9,000 
7,600 
9,300 

10,000 
10,000 
8,000 


10,000 
9,000 
9,000 
10,000 
10,000 
8,000 
9,500 
10,500 
10,000 
12,000 
10,000 
8,000 
10,000 
10,500 

























































































































































206 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL 


Bulk freighters constructed on the Great Lakes —Continued. 


Name. 

Length 
over all. 

Carrying 

capacity. 

1906. 




Feet. 

Gross tons. 

Henry H. Rogers. 

600 

12,000 

Wm. G. Pollock. 

440 

6,500 

J. Q. Riddle. 

552 

10,000 

Joshua W. Rhodes. 

440 

6,500 

A. Y. Townsend. 

602 

12,000 

Norman B. Ream. 

600 

12,000 

Henry A. Hawgood. 

552 

10,000 

Wm. E. Fitzgerald. 

440 

6,500 

D. R. Hanna. 

552 

10,000 

Peter A. B. Widener. 

600 

12,000 

Jas. S. Dunham. 

440 

6,500 

D. J. Morrell. 

602 

12,000 

Samuel Mather. 

550 

10,000 

Sheldon Parks. 

552 

10,000 

Joe S. Morrow. 

400 

6,500 

Gen. Garretson. 

540 

10,000 

W. B. Kerr. 

605 

12,000 

Wm. P. Snyder. 

550 

10,000 

Jas. Laughlln. 

550 

10,000 

Michigan. 

550 

10,000 

Ishpeming. 

E. L. Wallace. 

550 

445 

10,000 

6,700 

J. H. Sheadle. 

550 

10,000 

John Mitchel. 

440 

6,500 

Eugene Zimmerman. 

500 

8,000 

Sierra. 

458 

6,800 

1907. 



Mathew Andrews. 

552 

10,000 

Hugh Kennedy. 

552 

10,000 

J. H. Bartow. 

524 

9,000 

Thos. Lynch. 

600 

12,000 

H. P. McIntosh. 

540 

10,000 

Henry Phipps. 

600 

12,000 

Le Grand S. De Graff. 

605 

12,000 

George F. Baker. 

600 

12,000 

Charles 0. Jenkins. 

524 

9,000 

Hemlock. 

440 

6,500 

Wm. M. Mills. 

605 

12,000 

Jay C. Morse. 

552 

10,000 

Odanah. 

440 

6,500 

Calumet. 

440 

6,500 

Cyprus. 

Salt Lake City. 

440 

6,400 

552 

10,000 

Crete. 

440 

6,500 

Ward Ames. 

552 

10,000 

J. J. Sullivan.. 

552 

10,000 

Edwin N. Ohl. 

440 

6,500 

Arthur H. Hawgood. 

569 

10,500 

Verona. 

440 

6,500 

W. A. Hawgood. 

552 

10,000 

Adriatic. 

440 

6,500 

H. P. Bope. 

552 

10,000 

Elba. 

440 

6,500 

Charles W. Kotcher. 

440 

6,500 

Thomas Barium. 

500 

8,000 

Caldera. 

524 

9,000 

Thomas F. Cole. 

605 

12,000 

D. 0. Mills. 

552 

10,000 

Wm. B. Davock. 

440 

6,500 

W T ilpen. 

574 

11,000 

Milinokett. 

524 

9,000 

John J. Boland. 

500 

8,000 

Josiah G. Munro. 

552 

10,000 

Jacob T. Kopp. 

500 

8,000 

Charles Hubbard. 

460 

6,800 

Smith Thompson. 

458 

6,800 

John Dunn, jr. 

524 

9,000 

1908. 



B. F. Berrv. 

569 

10,500 

Wainwrigtit. 

440 

6,500 

.T. J. H. Brown. 

452 

6,700 

John A. McGean. 

440 

6,500 

J. E. Upson. 

524 

9,000 

Wm. H. Truesdale. 

452 

6,700 

A. W. Thompson. 

524 

9,000 


Name. 

Length 
over all. 

Carrying 

capacity. 

1908. 




Feet. 

Gross tons 

A. E. Nettleton. 

145 

10,000 

William H. Wolf. 

524 

9,000 

Rufus P. Ranney.. 

440 

6,500 

Howard M. Hanna, jr. 

500 

8,000 

John A. Donaldson. 

400 

5,500 

W. R. Woodford. 

552 

10,000 

Price McKinney. 

452 

6,700 

J. F. Durston. 

452 

6,700 

Honduras. 

256 

2,800 

Nor mania. 

440 

6,500 

M. A. Bradley. 

480 

7,500 

Harry A. Berwind. 

552 

10,000 

William Livingstone. 

552 

10,000 

Adam E. Cornelius. 

440 

6,500 

James Corrigan. 

550 

10,000 

Daniel B. Meacham. 

550 

10,000 

Theo. H. Wickwire. 

464 

6,800 

Fred G. Hartwell. 

524 

9,000 

1909. 



Alva C. Dinkey. 

600 

12,000 

Eugene L. Buffington. 

600 

12,000 

Alpena. 

374 

5,000 

9,000 

La Belle. 

524 

Andrew S. Upson. 

400 

5,500 

John J. Barium. 

524 

9,000 

Benjamin Noble. 

256 

2,800 

Isaac M. Scott. 

524 

9,000 

G. A. Tomlinson. 

524 

9,000 

J. S. Ashley. 

524 

9,000 

Wm. B. Schiller. 

600 

12,000 

J. P. Morgan, jr. 

600 

12,000 

A. A. Augustus. 

524 

9,000 

Clifford F. Moll. 

464 

6,800 

Shenango. 

607 

12,000 

Denmark. 

460 

6,700 

1910. 



Leonard B. Miller. 

524 

9,000 

John P. Reiss. 

524 

9,000 

John B. Cowle. 

545 

10,000 

Charles L. Hutchinson. 

524 

9,000 

Joseph Wood. 

524 

9,000 

A. M. Byers. 

524 

9,000 

Peter Reiss. 

524 

9,000 

Charles S. Price. 

524 

9,000 

E. H. Utley. 

524 

9,000 

W. C. Moreland. 

600 

12,000 

Ontario. 

465 

6,800 

Champlain. 

465 

6,800 

Harry E. Yates. 

550 

10,000 

St. Clair. 

465 

6,800 

Theo. J. Wickwire, jr. 

550 

10,000 

W. J. Olcott. 

605 

12,000 

Wm. B. Dickson. 

605 

12,000 

Wm. P. Palmer. 

600 

12,000 

Willis L. King. 

600 

12,000 

Norway. 

524 

9,000 

1911. 



Wm. C. Agnew. 

552 

10,000 

Thomas Walters. 

600 

12,000 

Quincy A. Shaw. 

524 

9,000 

The Harvester. 

545 

10,000 

Col. J. M. Schoonmaker. 

617 

14,000 

1912. 



W. P. Snvder, jr. 

617 

14,000 

Louis R. Davidson. 

524 

9,000 

FOR 1913 DELIVERY. 



James A. Farrell. 

600 

12,000 

Percival Robers, jr. 

600 

12,000 

Richard Trimble. 

600 

12,000 

A. C. Dustin. 

525 

9,000 

































































































































































THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


207 


REPLY BY COUNSEL OF CANADA. 

March 20, 1913. 

Hon. James Tawney,. 

Chairman International Joint Commission , Washington. 

Sir: Counsel for the Dominion of Canada desire to reply to a statement tiled by 
Mr. William Livingstone, bearing date March 7, 1913, which has only recently been 
received, as follows: 

1. The question of additional pollution of the water supply of Amherstburg and of 
other Ontario municipalities interested can properly be left to the counsel represent¬ 
ing these interests, but the undersigned point out— 

(а) That inasmuch as the pollution of the waters of the Detroit River by the sewage 
of Detroit is not evenly distributed, it is manifest that a greater amount of water 
flowing past the intake of the water supply of the town of Amherstburg at a greater 
velocity would augfhent the danger to the health of that town by increasing the 
number of infected zones of water which would pass such intake and thereby increase 
the number of links in the chain of danger. 

(б) So far as concerns the new town to be built by the United States Steel Corpora¬ 
tion a few miles above Amherstburg on the Canadian side, attention is called .to the 
fact that any danger from this source could and would be dealt with by the Ontario 
authorities under section 93 of the public-health act of Ontario, 1912, which contains 
stringent provisions against the pollution of any source of public water supply, and 
these provisions would, beyond question, be brought into force against any contra¬ 
vention of the act by a new municipality. 

2. On the main question it will be remembered that our submission to the com¬ 
mission on behalf of the Government of the Dominion of Canada was that the con¬ 
tinued diversion by the Sanitary District of Chicago of the waters of Lake Michigan 
and the possible further increase of such diversion was a detriment and menace to the 
navigation and other interests of both countries of such serious importance that it is 
essential that this diversion and the consequent lowering of the level of the inter¬ 
national boundary waters should be effectively considered without delay; and that a 
waterway being a whole, must be dealt with as such. 

3. Mr. Livingstone’s memorandum contains, in our view, an admirable statement 
of the enormous interests involved in the carrying trade of international boundary 
waters and presents in a most forcible manner one of the arguments against the diver¬ 
sion of water above referred to. 

4. We desire especially to call your attention to his statement on page 5 of his memo¬ 
randum that the loss per inch of the diminished draft in the fleet of 467 vesssels 
controlled by his corporation alone would mean an annual loss in carrying capacity 
of 1,550,000 tons per inch, representing in cash $615,000 for each inchof diminished 
draft. 

5. We submit that it must be apparent that if one fleet alone will lose by the lower¬ 
ing of the water level, say, 6 inches, $3,690,000 per annum in earning power, while the 
cost of operation continues the same, one of two things must happen; either the 
carriers must go out of business or the rates must be increased, and such increase must, 
in the long run, inevitably be paid by the consumers of both countries. 

6. We request your earnest consideration of this phase of the situation and urge 
most strongly that if the present diversion of water is continued and increased, as 
threatened, enormous loss will be sustained in the case of both countries, not only by 
the carrying trade of the Great Lakes, but also by the grain growers and miners of the 
West, and the manufacturers and coal miners of the East. 

7. In conclusion we desire to repeat our argument at the hearing, that the real key 
to the situation lies in the prevention of further diversion of water and consequent 
lowering of level. Once this question is finally settled then both countries can 
enter upon a sound and reasonable joint system of improving this great waterway to 
the enormous advantage of both. We are convinced that a tribunal such as this 
International Joint Commission, with the evidence and material placed before it in 
this matter, can and ought to make such a report or recommendation to both Govern¬ 
ments as will inevitably lead to prompt and decided action upon the lines suggested 
by us at the hearing. The benefits to both countries, in our view, would be incalcu¬ 
lable. 

John R. White, 

C. S. MacInnes, 

Counsel for the Government of the Dominion of Canada. 


208 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Bank of Hamilton Building, 

Hamilton , Canada , March 24, 1913. 

Lawrence J. Burpee, Esq., 

Secretary International Joint Commission, Ottawa , Canada. 

Dear Mr. Burpee: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of March 12, 
with the inclosures, for which please accept my thanks. I beg to inclose you a memo¬ 
randum on*behalf of the Ontario government, which be kind enough to lay before the 
commission. 

Yours, faithfully, Geo. Lynch-Staunton. 


Memorandum on Behalf of the Government of the Province of Ontario to 
the International Joint Commission. 

The treaty between the United States and Great Britain respecting international 
waterways provides: 

“Article IV. It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary 
waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to 
the injury of health or property of the other.” 

It is admitted that if the dike in question is constructed it will cause a large addi¬ 
tional quantity of water to pass between Bois Blanc Island and Amherstburg. 

It has been proved also that a large quantity of sewage is deposited in the river and 
on its shores by the city of Detroit and that such sewage is injurious to health and 
property. 

It has further been shown that a large quantity of this water charged with sewage 
passes between the Bois Blanc Island and Amherstburg and that large deposits of this 
sewage are thrown on the Canadian shore, and that the people of Amherstburg, though 
they chlorinate the water, suffer from periodic epidemics of typhoid fever caused by 
this sewage. As I recollect it, the evidence is that the dike will cause an additional 
quantity amounting to about 11,000 cubic feet per second of this polluted water to be 
carried over from the American to the Canadian side and past the town of Amherstburg. 

Mr. F. A. Dallyn, engineer of the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario, stated: 

“(2) An increase in the amount of water flowing past Amherstburg by diversion of 
the current crossing over Bois Blanc Island, would cause more Detroit sewage to flow 
past Amherstburg. 

“(3) The increased flow of sewage would unquestionably increase the infectivity of 
the source of water supply. The infectivity being entirely dependent upon the inter¬ 
mittent pressure of the specific organisms causing water-borne diseases, if more 
varieties of sewage pass—coming from more numerous infected zones—then the 
pathogenic organisms will be more frequently present, and the typhoid rate, as well 
as the general death rate, due to disease from other water-borne infections, will increase 
in a much greater proportion than the proportional increase in the flow of sewage.” 

Dr. Hodgetts, medical adviser of the Canadian conservative commission, emphatic¬ 
ally states that the increased quantity of sewage will increase the danger to health and 
property on the Canadian side. 

It is submitted, therefore, that the building of this dike by the American Govern¬ 
ment will send a large quantity of polluted water into the Amherstburg Channel which 
would otherwise pass down on the American side of Bois Blanc Island, which will of 
itself be injurious to health and property on the Canadian side, and its construction 
will therefore be a direct violation by the United States Government of that part of 
the treaty quoted above. 

It may be argued that the fact that Detroit is already polluting the Canadian water^ 
will excuse or allow the United States Government to further pollute Canadian water. 

Assume that it was shown that at the present time none of the Detroit sewage passes 
down the Amherstburg Channel. It could not in that case be argued, if the con¬ 
struction of this dike would so change the course of the water as to cause polluted 
water to flow through the channel, that the building of the dike would not be a direct 
violation of the treaty. 

The United States is responsible for and should prevent the city of Detroit sending 
its sewage across the boundary line, and it follows that if such is the duty of the United 
States, it would be violating the treaty, if, instead of preventing, it were to actively 
cause any of that sewage to pollute Canadian waters. 

It will be noticed that the treaty does not speak of fouling waters which hitherto 
have been uncontaminated, but by it the United States promises that quite irrespec¬ 
tive of the previous condition of the water it will not cast anything in the Canadian 
waters which would be injurious to health or property and quite irrespective of what 
others may be doing on either side of the boundary. 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


209 


The evidence quoted above proves that sending additional sewage down the channel 
will, cause injury to health and property which does not now exist. The turning of 
additional contaminated water onto our shores is then a distinct act injurious to health 
and property and a violation of the treaty. 

The fact that the percentage of sewage will not be increased in the total volume of 
water which will flow by Amherstburg does not prove that a larger quantity of sewage 
will not be left on the shores than was deposited and before the coming of the increased 
volume of polluted water. Whether the percentage has increased or not, the quantity 
of sewage deposited on the shore is increased and a greater injury inflicted on the 
property of riparian owners. 

It needs no argument to prove that the greater the quantity of filth deposited upon 
one’s land, the greater the nuisance and injury inflicted on the owner. 

It is submitted vrith confidence that it is the duty of the United States under the 
treaty to take active measures to prevent water charged with sewage from Detroit 
flowing across to the Canadian side of the river, and that if instead of so doing it takes 
active measures to cast more sewage into Canadian waters it is committing a direct 
violation of the treaty. 

The Province of Ontario therefore contends that the International Joint Commission 
should report that, by reason of the fact that the building of this dike by the United 
States Government would cause the water on the Canadian side of the river to be 
polluted to the injury of health and property, it can not indorse its construction. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Geo. Lynch-Staunton, 
Counsel for Province of Ontario. 

Ottawa, March 25 , 1913. 


Department of the Naval Service, 

Hydrographic Survey, 

Ottawa , March 27, 1913. 

Sir: I beg to return you the copy of Mr. Livingstone’s statement filed with the 
International Joint Commission, and I have to advise you that there is very little com¬ 
ment to be made on it. It is to be noticed that Mr. Livingstone sticks strictly to 
statistics of the carrying capacity of the lake fleet, which, as every one knows, is enor¬ 
mous. As a chain is no sponger than its weakest link, so the Great Lakes waterway 
has no greater capacity than can be furnished by the shoalest channel. Mr. Living¬ 
stone shows what a serious matter even a slight lowering of the lakes’ surface or, what 
is the same thing, decrease in depth at any local point is, without making reference 
to any special point in the light of its carrying capacity. 

By reference to Bulletin No. 21 of Survey of Northern and Northwestern Lakes it 
will be seen that when Lake Erie is at a height of 571 the draft across Ballard Reef, 
Limekiln Crossing, and through Livingstone Channel is 21 feet, but that through the 
St. Clair Flats Canal is only 18f feet. This shows that for the present, at least, the 
very slight lowering that has been occasioned at Ballard Reef by the opening of 
Livingstone Channel is not very serious. 

He does not refer to the dangerous cross currents as a protection against which the 
dike is partially to be constructed. On this point sufficient evidence has been brought 
out to show that with ordinary care and with the class of lake captains we have there 
is very little to be feared, and it seems to me only reasonable that the present state of 
affairs should receive a further testing out. 

Mr. Livingstone does not refer at all to the contention set up by the Canadian Gov¬ 
ernment that the whole system requires something better than the study of this one 
link in the chain. His association is probably more interested in the Chicago diver¬ 
sion than any other on the Great Lakes. The water taken by the sanitary district does 
not only affect the Detroit River, but every harbor, every channel, every canal, and 
every lake from the foot of the Sault Ste. Marie to the St. Lawrence River, and the 
return of this water would be of infinitely greater benefit than the construction of the 
dike. 

Our department of public works has recently made an investigation into the effect 
on Montreal Harbor of the Chicago diversion, and they find that the extraction of 7,000 
cubic feet per second makes a permanent lowering there of 6^ inches. This is a feature 
that has not been brought out hitherto. Very few engineers believed that the trouble 
was so serious. 

Mr. Livingstone, in his reference to the trouble from the sewage at Amherstburg, 
infers that Amherstburg has no right to make any objection to this work because it has 

86342—13-14 



210 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


an antiquated water system entirely inadequate for the proper safeguarding of the 
health of the community. This seems to me a little bit harsh on Amherstburg. I 
would like him to explain why he considers that Amherstburg should be put to the 
expense of purifying the water that Detroit, Windsor, and Walkerville are allowed to 
ruin. Surely if it is up to Amherstburg to put in a modern plant it is still further up 
to these other places to change their method of sewage disposal. The upstream com¬ 
munities have no right whatever to pollute the water and then expect the communi¬ 
ties lower down to install expensive purifying works. If anything along the river is 
antiquated it is the sewage-disposal works of the larger cities. 

I do not see why Amherstburg’s water system is antiquated, and I do not see where 
Amherstburg can obtain any water supply if not from the Detroit River. In the 
treaty the first use of the water is for domestic and sanitary purposes, and this being so 
I do not see that other communities have any right to make such use dangerous to 
health. 

It is hardly necessary again to reiterate the fact that the Canadian Government is 
not opposing this work as a work, but it does believe that some other agreement or 
arrangement for the use of the waters of the Great Lakes should be made. The open¬ 
ing of the Livingstone Channel has done very little harm and it has decreased the 
currents that existed through the Limekiln Crossing during the construction of the 
channel. 

As pointed out in my statement, the opening through the cofferdam, whilst not 
available for 450 feet of navigation, permits almost the total flow for a 450-foot opening, 
and as a careful consideration of the evidence shows that it is only intended to make 
a 450-foot channel through the cofferdam, the usefulness of this is not very apparent 
whilst the lower channel is only 300 feet wide. 

Yours, very truly, Wm. J. Stewart, 

Hydrographer. 

Lawrence J. Burpee, Esq., 

International Joint Commission , Ottawa. 


Dominion Marine Association, 
Kingston , Ontario , March 14, 19IS. 
Lawrence J. Burpee, Esq., # 

Secretary International Joint Commission. 

Dear Mr. Burpee: I have to thank you for your letter of the 12th, inclosing a 
copy of Mr. Livingstone’s statement, just received through the Washington office of 
the commission. I have had an opportunity to-day to look it over, and I must say 
that it is a very interesting document, containing information that is doubtless very 
valuable. I do not think it raises any point, however, with special reference to the 
questions affecting the Dominion Marine Association, and already discussed in argu¬ 
ment at Detroit, and I do not feel that I should attempt to add anything to what has 
already been said. 

Anything pf an argumentative character which appears in the latter part of the 
document has reference to the three items on page 7 of the copy, and the Dominion 
Marine Association did not enter into any special discussion of these items. 

On behalf of the association I beg to express appreciation of the opportunity given 
to submit any reply that we thought proper. 

Faithfully, yours, Francis King. 


Dominion Marine Association. 
Kingston , Ontario , March 12, 1913. 

Lawrence J. Burpee, Esq., 

Secretary International Joint Commission , Ottawa. 

Dear Mr. Burpee: I have to thank you for your letter of the 11th, calling to my 
attention a list of Canadian shipping made during argument at Detroit. I am sending 
you inclosed herewith a list of Canadian vessels which continually navigate the 
Detroit River. These are practically all freighters, the passenger vessels of Canadian 
register coming no farther south than Sarnia, with the exception possibly of a few 
small boats in the river. Please note that the tonnage named is the net registered 
tonnage, and not the carrying capacity. 

Faithfully, yours, Francis King. 





THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL 


211 


Approximate list of Canadian vessels navigating the Detroit River, shoiving the net 

registered tonnage. 


Company. 


Steamer. 


Tonnage. 


St. Lawrence and Chicago Steam Navigating Co. (Ltd.), Toronto. 


Canadian Lake Transportation Co. (Ltd.), Toronto 


E. B. Osier. 

W. D. Matthews 

G. R. Crowe_ 

Iroquois. 

Jas. Carruthers.. 

Arabian. 

Corunna. 

Nevada. 


4,3C1 

2.450 
2,347 

1.451 
*5,000 

770 

791 

793 


Merchants Mutual Line (Ltd.), Toronto 


Canadian Lake & Ocean Navigation Co. (Ltd.), Toronto 


Canadian Interlake Line (Ltd.), Toronto. 


Also, newly built or purchased 


Also, above-named 


Kenora. 

Regina. 

Tagona. 

A. E. Ames.. 

J. H. Plummer.. 
H. M. Pellatt.... 

Saskatoon. 

Mapleton. 

Beaverton. 

Turret Court_ 

Turret Chief_ 

Scottish Hero 

Acadian. 

Canaidan.. 

D. A. Gordon_ 

A. E. McKinstry 

R envoy le.. 

Hamiltonian_ 

Calgarian.. 

Fordonian.. 

Cadillac.. 

Pioneer.. 


1,274 

1,280 

1,299 

1,020 

991 

1,037 

1,147 

1,139 

1,357 

1,197 

1,197 

1,380 

1,457 

1,444 

1,433 

1,203 

1,176 

1,666 


Marrs.. 
Regina. 


6,500 


Kenora 


Keystone Transportation Co. (Ltd.) 


The Farrer Transportation Co. (Ltd.), Collingwood 

Canada Atlantic Transit Co. (Ltd.), Montreal. 

Western Steamship Co. (Ltd.), Toronto. 

Western Navigation Co. (Ltd.), Port William. 

Forwarders (Ltd.), Kingston. 

Mathews Steamship Co. (Ltd.), Toronto. 


Brockville Transportation Co. (Ltd.), Brockville 

Central Canada Coal Co. (Ltd.), Brockville. 

Inland Lines (Ltd.), Midland. 


F. E. Hall & Co., Montreal. 

Port Colbome & St. Lawrence Steam Navigation Co. (Ltd.), 
Toronto. 

Turret Crown (Ltd.), Toronto. 

Canadian Northwest Steamship Co. (Ltd.), Toronto. 

Parry Sound Trans. Co. (Ltd.), Toronto. 

Algoma Central Steamship Co. (Ltd.), Ste. St. Marie. 


Tagona. 

Keystorm 3. 

Keyport. 

Key west. 

Keybell. 

Collingwood. 

Meaford.. 

Newona. 

J. A. McKee. 

Wexford. 

Kaministiquia. 

Port Colbome. 

Haddington. 

Edmonton. 

Yorkton. 

Easton. 

Sen. Derbyshire. 

Samuel Marshall. 

Dunbum. 

Dundee. 

Dunelm. 

Donnacona. 

Glenellah. 

Neepawah. 

Rosedale... 

Strathcona. 

Wahcondah. 

Winona. 

Emperor of Midland. 

Emperor of Fort William.... 

Midland King. 

Midland Queen. 

Midland Prince... 

Emperor. 

Sindbad. 

Carleton... 

Algonquin. 


1,297.84 

1,298.44 

1,300 

3,285 

1,201 

1,401.15 

1,375 

1,340 

1,401 

1,306 

1,010 

1,340 

1,136 

1,200 

987 

540 

600 

1,431 

1,481 

1,222 

1,453 

1,190 

977 

1,465 

996 

1,326 

1,629 

1,382 

2,636 

1,348 

4,558 

4,641 

539 

831 

1,172 


Turret Crown. 

Neebing. 

Seguin. 

A gawa. 

Th. J. Drummond 

Leafield. 

Paliki. 


1,141.95 

1,187 

771 

2,467 

1,664 

1,176 

993 


* At least. 


2 Total, roughly. 


3 Sunk last year. 








































































































212 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Company. 

Steamer. 

Tonnage. 

Barge or sailing. 

Tonnage. 

Calvin Co. (Ltd.), Garden Island. 


1,172 

Burma. 

885 


973 

Ceylon. 

908 

Northern Navigation Co. (Ltd.), 
Sarnia. 

Montreal Trans. Co. (Ltd.), Mon¬ 
treal. 

India. 

Doric. 

Ionic. 

Advance. 

573 

1,451 

1,030 

359 

Augustus. 

803 

Fairmount. 

1,183 

Melrose. 

740 

Glenmount. 

1,247 

1,598 

989 

Quebec... .. 

988 


Kinsmount_ 

Selkirk. 

719 


Rosemount.. 

Winnipeg. 

681 


Stormount . 

1,231 

1,171 

Hamilton. 

968 


Westmount. 

Ugava. 

1,226 

Montreal & Great Lakes Steam¬ 
ship Co. (Ltd.), Montreal. 

Jacques Trans. Co. (Ltd.), Mon¬ 
treal. 

Merchants Montreal Line, Mon¬ 
treal. 

Windsor. 

Bickerdike. 

C. A. Jacques. 

City of Hamilton. 

City of Ottawa. 

City of Montreal. 

1,276 

863 

1,590 

869 

838 

868 



Steam tonnage. 128,142.38 

Barge or sailing tonnage. 7, 918. 00 

Total net registered tonnage.136,060.38 


International Joint Commission, 

Washington , D. C., Aprils, 1913. 

The commission met at 10 o’clock a. m. to consider and report on 
the Livingstone Channel, and upon further suggestions being made, 
it was decided to reopen the hearing for the purpose of taking addi¬ 
tional testimony. 

Present: James A. Tawney (presiding); Th. Chase Casgrain, K. C.; 
Frank S. Streeter; Henry A. Powell, K. C.; Charles A. Magrath, 
George Turner—L. White Busbey and Lawrence J. Burpee, secre¬ 
taries. 

Appearances: For the United States, Peeves T. Strickland, assistant 
to the Attorney General of the United States. For Canada, W. R. 
White, K. C., and Charles S. Macinnes, K. C. 

There were also present Lieut. Col. Mason M. Patrick, Corps of 
Engineers, United States Army; and Mr. William J. Stewart, chief 
of the hydrographic survey of Canada. 

STATEMENT OF COL. MASON M. PATRICK. 

The Chairman. Col. Patrick, you were sworn at Detroit in this 
Livingstone Channel investigation. When I met you Tuesday, here 
in Washington, I asked whether there was any additional protective 
works that might be recommended by the commission that would 
minimize the effects anticipated by the people of Amherstburg on 
their interests in the event of the construction of the dam or dike 
mentioned in the reference, I then asked you what the effect would be 
of the construction of a wing dpm extending from the Canadian 
shore out to the Amherstburg Channel. You stated that you had 
not given the matter any consideration, but you would think it over. 
Subsequently you informed me that after a conference with the Chief 
of Engineers, Gen. Bixby, it was your judgment, in which judgment 
he acquiesced, that the wing dam would not be efficient for that pur- 












































213 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 

pose, and, upon further inquiry, you made some suggestions that 
might be adopted for the purpose of protecting navigation in the 
Livingstone Channel against the effect of the cross currents. Will 
you please state to the commission just what those suggestions 
were with respect to a dike on the east or west side of the channel 
for the .purpose of dealing exclusively with the cross currents in the 
Livingstone Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. Do you wish me to confine what I have to say to the 
specific questions you asked me about the dike on the west side ? 

The Chairman. You may state anything you wish with reference 
to minimizing the effects anticipated by the people of Amherstburg 
on their interests, and how to deal with those cross currents effi¬ 
ciently or anything in the interest of navigation. 

Col. Patrick. There is, I think, substantial agreement that witli 
the Livingstone Channel opened as it is at present there is no especial 
necessity for any compensating works. I think it is equally well 
established that if it be opened to a greater width, compensating 
works will be necessary, but, dealing with the question as it exists 
now and with the present opening in this channel, the only thing to 
take care of, so far as navigation interests are concerned, is this 
objectionable cross current below the lower end of the portion of 
work that was done in the dry. I am thoroughly convinced that 
that cross current is objectionable, and that it is a wise measure to 
take some means to mitigate its effect if it can not be entirely elimi¬ 
nated. From a navigation standpoint, from an engineering stand¬ 
point, and from an economical standpoint the best of all solutions is 
the dike proposed from the southwest corner of the cofferdam to 
Bois Blanc Island. There is a second way in which that cross current 
can be absolutely eliminated; that is by running a dike parallel to 
the channel down along its eastern side. That would concentrate 
the current above the head of Bois Blanc Island and would wash it 
away unless it was protected by a heavy revetment. It was sug¬ 
gested at the hearing in Detroit that some good might be done by 
placing a dike along the west side of the channel. I had not at 
that time given any great amount of consideration to such a pallia¬ 
tive measure, because I did not think it would accomplish its pur¬ 
pose in its entirety. Since that time I have thought of it again and 
have talked the matter over with the Chief of Engineers. 

From the chart it is apparent that on the west side of the channel, 
just about where this current crosses it, there is a considerable hole or 
deep place in the river itself , and I believe that the draw of this current 
across the channel is made possible, or results from, the presence of that 
deeper area on the west side. So I think that if a wall or dike be built 
along the west side of the channel, beginning at a point below where 
the boats cross from Sugar Island to Amherstburg and running down 
a few thousand feet, it will be a palliative measure which might be 
sufficient to counteract the worst effects of this current. That is, 
my subsequent study of the matter has led me to that belief. In 
other words, there are those three ways—the proposed dike from 
the cofferdam to Bois Blanc Islani; the training wall running down 
on the east side; and this third proposition down the west side. 
As to the question of their economy, my estimate, which I promised 
to submit to the commission, by the way, and must apologize to 
the commission for having forgotten to do so while in Detroit, I 


214 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


have since made up. The cost of running the dam over to Bois Blanc 
Island will be about $33,000. 

Mr. Streeter. That is the proposed plan ? 

Col. Patrick. That was the proposed plan; yes, sir. To run 
the dike down from the cofferdam parallel to the channel and on 
its eastward side, and put in any compensating works that might 
be necessary, would cost a little more than double that, or about 
$70,000. The dike on the west side of the channel can be put in 
place for probably about the same cost as that of the original dike 
proposed Detween the island and the cofferdam, or probably $33,000. 

Mr. Streeter. And take care of compensating works ? 

Col. Patrick. No, sir; it will not effect any compensation what¬ 
ever. It will simply be for the purpose of partially eliminating the 
cross currents. If the channel is opened subsequently to its greater 
width of 450 feet, compensating works will be necessary in addition, 
but so long as the channel remains at its present width, compensating 
works are unnecessary. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the whole of the channel, or just the 
cofferdam, opening the cofferdam to its full width ? 

Col. Patrick. If the cofferdam portion is opened to its full width, 
some little compensation will, in my opinion, be necessary. I do 
not see that opening the cofferdam section to its 450-foot width 
now would be any great aid to navigation. The time will come 
when navigation demands the opening of that entire channel to 
the full width of 450 feet, and, until that time does come, there 
is no great gain by opening this smaller portion of it to 450 feet. 

Now, as you permitted me to go a little further, there is another 
thing which I think might form a part of a recommendation if the 
commission sees fit to so consider it. There was considerable testi¬ 
mony showing that a great deal of the difficulty in this part of the 
river was due to the difficulty of entering the Livingstone Channel 
at its northern end. While that is not specifically referred to your 
commission in this reference, if anything is done to mitigate the 
state of affairs that now exists there I assume it would come before 
your commission. You would have to recommend the excavation 
that would be necessary in Canadian or American waters. At the 
northern end of this channel, if a portion of the rocky reef to the 
westward of the entrance can be removed, and also some of the 
shoals on the eastern side can be removed, so that the shipping can 
get into it better, there will be a great advantage to shipping in that 
part of the river. 

Mr. Powell. That is, they want a straight course for the entrance ? 

Col. Patrick. They want rather a curved course for the entrance. 
If they can take the angle out and come on a gentle direction rather 
than an abrupt one, it would aid them greatly. . 

Mr. Casgrain. Would that be very expensive? 

Col. Patrick. No, sir. A portion that would be removed lies in 
Canadian waters. I am not sure that all of it does not lie in Cana¬ 
dian waters. The boundary line goes right across that portion of 
the channel excavated in the dry. 

Mr. Turner. Could not that be done by the United States with¬ 
out any further action on the part of Canada on the original arrange¬ 
ment under which this cofferdam was excavated ? 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


215 


Col. Patrick. There has been considerable question as to the 
United States doing this under that authorization, and I simply 
hoped that your commission might be able to recommend that this 
be done and settle the matter once for all. If the recommendation 
of Canada is needed, let us get their recommendation for it. 

Mr. Turner. This reference to us contemplates a channel 450 
feet wide. As I understand it, the money has been appropriated 
for that. 

Col. Patrick. No, sir; I have to differ with you there. The 
money was appropriated for widening this narrow portion of the 
channel to 450 feet and for building this dam. 

Mr. Turner. There has been no appropriation for the entire 
channel % 

Col. Patrick. Not for widening the channel for its entire length; 
no, sir. It is from the end of the cofferdam down to the end of the 
channel; down to where it was dredged. No appropriation has been 
made for widening that to any width greater than 300 feet, and 
there has been no recommendation on the part of the engineers as 
yet, but when the board recommended this dam up here they had 
in mind that the time would come when that would be necessary. 
The time has not arrived, however. 

Mr. Turner. Whenever it should be widened throughout its 
entire length, you think compensating works would be necessary ? 

Col. Patrick. I know that they will be necessary. 

Mr. Turner. What other alternative plan of compensating works 
is possible there ? 

Col. Patrick. If compensation be not provided by the dike, which 
is placed across here as originally proposed, then it will be necessary 
to go somewhere else and fill in so as to diminish the cross section 
of the river in a corresponding degree to that in which it is enlarged. 
That can be done in several places and in several ways. We can go 
over in the American channel and over in the narrow bottom of 
Grosse Isle; or we can come here on the eastern side and put a dike 
out in that rocky bottom which will diminish the cross section to a 
certain extent. Either of those two plans will provide compensation. 

Mr. Turner. A dike on the east side would have the same objec¬ 
tion that is now urged to that dike at Bois Blanc Island, would it 
not; that is, in throwing the current over into the Amherstburg 
Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. The dike that I have been speaking of would be on 
the east side parallel to the channel. There are two ways; a dike 
parrallel to the channel on the east side, or a dike parallel to the 
channel on the west side. * 

Mr. Turner. A dike parallel to the channel on the east side would 
not have any effect as compensating works, would it ? 

Col. Patrick. None whatever. 

Mr. Turner. I mean that it would not have any effect as com¬ 
pensating works with respect to throwing the water over into the 
Amherstburg Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. It would lessen the flow across there and lessen the 
flow down here [indicating on the chart]. In other words, it would 
be an improvement in the vicinity of Amherstburg rather than a 
detriment. 


216 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Turner. A short dike of that kind across there would be much 
cheaper, too, than a dike to Bois Blanc Island, would it not? 

Col. Patrick. I would like to answer that in this way: That the 
cost of the necessary compensation, considered alone, will be about 
the same anywhere. 

Mr. Streeter. What will that amount to ? I believe you said 
that on the west side it would be $33,000. 

Col. Patrick. I said that the cost of the dike as originally pro¬ 
posed from the cofferdam to Bois Blanc Island would be $33,000. 1 es¬ 

timate that the cost of compensating works alone will be about $7,500. 

The Chairman. And the cost of the dike on the east side, I under¬ 
stood you to say, you estimated at about $70,000 ? 

Col. Patrick. The cost of the dike and including the compensating 
works. I believe in making that statement I gave the wrong figure. 
It should be about $77,000. A dike on the east side and the com¬ 
pensating works, no matter where they are placed, will cost about 
$77,000, of which $7,500, plus 10 per cent of itself, is for compen¬ 
sating alone, and the remainder of the expenditure is for obviating 
the cross currents. 

Mr. Streeter. Then, you suggested that the cost of the dike on 
the west side, not including compensating works, would be about 
$30,000? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; about $30,000. 

Mr. Streeter. And the compensating works in any event would 
be what ? 

Col. Patrick. We will say around $10,000, to be safe. 

The Chairman. What would the excavation that you suggest cost ? 

Col. Patrick. I am not prepared to submit an estimate as to the 
cost of that this morning. 

The Chairman. Would it be very expensive ? 

Col. Patrick. Not very. 

Mr. Turner. Could you approximate it, so that if we do make a 
recommendation we would be within bounds ? 

Col. Patrick. It would take me a few minutes to make a few fig¬ 
ures with regard to that. I can do it and will do so, but I have not 
enough data from this small chart to determine that, and I did not 
bring those figures with me. I am a little careful about risking 
guesses, and I would rather not do it. 

The Chairman. Independent of what was brought out at the hear¬ 
ings at Detroit, have you had any requests from the navigation inter¬ 
ests for the change that you now suggest in the channel at the head 
or north of the Livingstone Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. I have; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The navigation interests have requested that this 
be done independent of the cross currents and independent of the 
construction of the dike ? 

Col. Patrick. They have, sir; most vigorously. 

Mr. Casgrain. So that that would be desirable in any event. 

Col. Patrick. In any event, sir. 

The Chairman. You really think it is necessary in the interest of 
navigation ? 

Col. Patrick. If I were asked the question, or, in other words, if 
Congress directed a preliminary examination there, I am prepared 
now to recommend that that be done. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 217 

Mr. Powell. In fact, it is more of a danger than the cross current 
really is ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not know that I would quite say that, Mr. Pow¬ 
ell. It is just a case of taking care in both places. I do not know 
which of the two places is more dangerous or where an accident is 
more likely to happen. 

Mr. Turner. You could give us the figures, approximately, I sup¬ 
pose, in a short time as to the cost of that plan ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; I could give you the figures, approximately, in 
a short time. 

Mr. Powell. On your return ? 

Col. Patrick. I would like to telegraph when I get back. I should 
like to have a chart on which the soundings are very much more 
closely figured than the one here before I would like to make an esti¬ 
mate. 

Mr. Streeter. You mean after you go back to Detroit ? 

Col. Patrick. I could not do it here; I have not got the data. 

Mr. Streeter. Col. Patrick, do you, in behalf of the United States 
Government, recommend that the third proposition, namely, the build¬ 
ing of a dike on the west side of the channel, should be adopted ? 

Col. Patrick. No, sir. I do not recommend that, Gen. Streeter. 
I say there are those three possible solutions, and I rate them in then- 
order of merit, just as I did a moment ago. From an engineering 
standpoint I rate the first as a dam across to Bois Blanc Island, then 
a dike along the east side, and then a dike along the west side. They 
will all work to a more or less degree. The first two will be absolutely 
effective. The third, along the west side, I think will do some good. 
That is all I can say. 

Mr. Streeter. What, in your judgment, is the comparative merit 
of the first, second, and third possibilities? 

Col. Patrick. The first is an absolute solution of the question. 
The second is an absolute solution of the question at a greater cost. 
The third is a possible one at about the same cost as the first. 

Mr. Streeter. What do you mean by the words “possible solu¬ 
tion”? 

Col. Patrick. I am not thoroughly convinced that the dike on the 
west side will entirely eliminate the cross current, but I am convinced 
that it will mitigate or lessen it. 

Mr. Streeter. To a satisfactory extent ? 

Col. Patrick. To a degree. I hope it will be found that it will be 
to a satisfactory extent. 

Mr. Streeter. If you were satisfied that the dike on the west side 
would mitigate it to a satisfactory extent it would make some impres¬ 
sion, I have no doubt, on the commission. 

Col. Patrick. I understand that; but I do not feel that I am 
justified in going quite that far. I think it will do some good, and 
I think it may be entirely efficacious, but I am not prepared to say 
now that I could state positively that it would be absolutely effica¬ 
cious. 

Mr. Streeter. Now, as to the second solution, namely, the dike 
on the east side of the channel. In your judgment, would it abso¬ 
lutely correct the difficulty so far as cross currents are concerned ? 

Col. Patrick. Absolutely. 


218 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


Mr. Streeter. What, if any, advantages or disadvantages are 
there in that solution over the first one, namely, the proposed dike 
to Bois Blanc Island ? 

Col. Patrick. The much greater cost and the fact that there 
would be the danger of washing away the upper end of this island 
are the two features that render that solution of the problem, to my 
mind, objectionable. 

Mr. Turner. The cost would be very much greater, would it ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; more than double. 

Mr. Streeter. And in your figures of 177,000 do you include the 
cost of the revetment ? 

Col. Patrick. I did not. 

Mr. Streeter. Would that be almost certainly necessary? 

Col. Patrick. I think absolutely necessary. 

Mr. Streeter. What is your opinion as to the cost of the revet¬ 
ment to the island, to protect it ? 

Col. Patrick. I have figured rather roughly that you would have 
to add $10,000 to $15,000 to that cost of $77,000 in order to provide 
a sufficient protection for that end of the island. 

Mr. Streeter. Then, the figures before us, on the second solution, 
would be $87,000 to $92,000? 

Col. Patrick. They would be from $87,000 to $92,000. 

Mr. Streeter. How would that second solution, if adopted, leave 
the Amherstburg Channel, so far as any objections that have been 
raised are concerned ? 

Col. Patrick. It would not alter conditions in the Amherstburg 
Channel from what they are at the present time any more than a very 
slight degree. 

Mr. Streeter. What effect would the second solution have upon 
the navigation between Amherstburg and the west of Livingston 
Channel ? 

Col. Patrick. None, if, as would naturally be done, a gap would 
be left in this parallel dike, as is proposed for the dam. But the 
current that would pass through a gap m such a dike would be some¬ 
what less in velocity than the current which would pass through the 
opening left in the dam as originally proposed. 

The Chairman. Do I understand you, Col. Patrick, to mean that 
in this dike on the east side of the channel there would be an 
opening ? 

Col. Patrick. There would have to be an opening in it; yes, sir. 

Mr. Magrath. As to the dike on the west side, would it in any 
way interfere with the navigation across the channel ? 

Col. Patrick. Not in the slightest degree. 

Mr. Streeter. What would be the width of the opening between 
Bois Blanc Island and the dike on the east side of the channel under 
the second solution ? 

Col. Patrick. The least width between the dike and Bois Blanc 
Island, according to this scale, would be between 600 and 700 feet. 

Mr. Streeter. Could small boats easily navigate that channel, 
or would they be obliged to go through the proposed opening ? 

Col. Patrick. Small boats could navigate that channel. 

Mr. Casgrain. If the third solution were adopted—namely, the 
dike on the west side of the channel—could you state how much the 
velocity of the cross current would be decreased ? 



THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


219 


Col. Patrick. No; not in any feet per second or any other measure. 

Mr. Casgrain. Would you say it would be decreased half? 

Col. Patrick. I should hope it would be at least half, but there is 
nothing that I know of by which you can calculate it. 

The Chairman. Is it your judgment that the current would be 
materially reduced ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes; in my judgment the current would be ma¬ 
terially reduced. 

Mr. Turner. Would the dike on the west side lead to natural 
alterations or changes in the bed of the river which would lead to a 
further change in the cross current ? 

Col. Patrick. I do not think the change would lead to any change 
in the bed'of the river. 

The Chairman. I think Mr. Turner has in mind the deep place on 
the east side of the channel. 

Col. Patrick. I do not think they would fill. There is really so 
little sediment that is carried down in that stream that the condi¬ 
tions there are quite* table. 

The Chairman. From your knowledge, Col. Patrick, of the desire 
of the navigation interests, and from your knowledge of what would 
be to the greatest advantage to those interests, what would you say as 
to how the navigation interests would compare the benefit derived 
from the opening or dredging at the upper end of the channel and the 
disadvantages that might remain on account of the cross current ? 

Col. Patrick. I think that if the navigation interests were offered 
either of the two things, that the great majority of them would prefer 
the easing of the entrance at the northern end rather than the elimi¬ 
nation of the cross current; that is, if they had to choose between 
them. That is my opinion. 

Mr. Streeter. But the protection or the safety of the navigation 
interests would be greatly increased by the excavation at the northern 
end of the channel and the elimination of the cross currents, would it 
not ? 

Col. Patrick. Beyond question. 

Mr. Streeter. And, in your judgment, should the navigation 
interests be protected by both methods, namely, the elimination of 
the cross currents and the easing up of the opening by the excavation 
at the northern end ? 

Col. Patrick. I think that navigation up there is sufficiently im¬ 
portant to warrant any measures that can be taken to make it safer, 
and I firmly believe that both of those things should be done. 

Mr. Streeter. Assuming that the excavation should be made to 
ease the northern end of the channel, you still believe that the cross 
currents must be eliminated in one way or another by these various 
methods suggested ? 

Col. Patrick. I do. I still believe that it would be advantageous 
to do something to prevent the possibility of damage done by the 
cross currents. 

Mr. Powell. How far is it, Col. Patrick, from the point of the pro¬ 
jection above to the end of the Livingstone Channel? 

Col. Patrick. The length of the ledge that would have to be 
removed is approximately 2,500 feet. 

Mr. Powell. You do not correctly catch my meaning. There are 
sharp turns in the course there. How far is it from there down to the 


220 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


entrance ? 1 just wanted to see in what distance the vessels would 

swing. 

Col. Patrick. 3,300 or 3,400 feet. 

Mr. Powell. A 600-foot boat would not respond to her helm very 
quickly, then. 

Col. Patrick. You see that with that eliminated they can really 
begin their turn quicker. 

Mr. Powell. And as they begin they naturally go in a circle ? 

Col Patrick. Yes, sir; that is the point. 

The Chairman. Col. Patrick, this excavation would have to be 
done on both sides of the boundary line and in the jurisdiction of both 
countries, would it not ? 

Col. Patrick. As I now recollect the boundary line, it is probable 
that it would be in both countries. 

The Chairman. If it were in both countries it could be done only 
with the consent of both Governments ? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir; that is the reason I a^ed your commission 
to take the action I suggested. 

The Chairman. In your judgment that would be the case, and that 
is one reason why you asked the commission to consider it now, that 
this same question very likely would come to the commission by a 
reference similar to the one that we now have under consideration ? 

Col. Patrick. That is precisely my reason for bringing it before you 
to-day. It will save time, and I think it will obviate a reference to 
you at some future date. 

Mr. Streeter. There is just one more question, Col. Patrick, and 
I hardly know how to put it, but I want to know, in substance, if the 
commission should adopt the third solution, namely, the dike on 
the west side, whether, in your judgment, the navigation interests 
would thereby be satisfactorily protected against the cross currents ? 

Col. Patrick. I have answered that question, sir, as best I could 
before. I hope that they will be satisfactorily protected, and I think 
there is reason to believe that they would be, but until it is actually done 
I do not think you can answer that question categorically yes or no. 

Mr. Streeter. Well, Col. Patrick, you must understand that if 
that is done, if that conclusion should be reached by the commission, 
they would have to depend largely on the impression which you give 
as to the satisfactory results. 

Col. Patrick. I am aware of that, and am trying to answer as 
best I can. I say that subsequent study has impressed me with the 
belief that such a dike will materially modify the velocity of that 
cross current or the danger from that cross current. I do not think 
it the best solution, but I think it a solution which in all probability 
will be a satisfactory one. That is the best I can say. 

Mr. Powell. Not only that, Mr. Streeter, but it will catch the 
current itself and divert it downstream much earlier than would be 
the case under the present circumstances. 

Col. Patrick. Oi course, that is a part of the solution. 

The Chairman. If counsel for either of the Governments have any 
questions they desire to ask Col. Patrick, they have the privilege of 
doing so. 

Mr. White. Col. Patrick, regarding the question of compensation, 
you appear to consider that the compensation now with the channel 
remaining at the present width would be negligible and not required. 




THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


221 


Col. Patrick. Yes, I answered it just in that wa^. With the chan¬ 
nel as it is at present opened I think that there is no necessity for 
additional compensation. 

Mr. White. But considering the whole question, if further diver¬ 
sion Of water occurs at any other portion of the great waterways, I 
presume other compensation will be required ? 

Col. Patrick. Not by reason of anything that is done by the 
Livingstone Channel. Any diversion made from the Great Lakes 
system anywhere will unquestionably reduce the volume of water 
that follows the natural channels by which those lakes empty them¬ 
selves, and if the diversion is sufficient to produce a detrimental 
lowering of depth in the natural waterways or improved harbors, it 
would seem the part of wisdom to compensate in some way. 

Mr. White. But taking the facts as we know them, Col. Patrick, 
and the fact of the diversion of water there now, and the proposed 
diversion, it will then become a question of compensation at this 
particular point, will it not ? 

Col. Patrick. Not necessarily at this Livingstone Channel point, 
Mr. White. 

Mr. WYiite. But on the Detroit Kiver? 

Col. Patrick. Not necessarily on the Detroit Biver; no, sir. 

Mr. Streeter. Col. Patrick, I want to ask you one more question. 
Do I understand that you have conferred with the Chief of Engineers, 
Gen. Bixby, about this third solution? 

Col. Patrick. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Streeter. May I ask if he agreed with your view that this 
solution will probably be satisfactory so far as navigation interests 
are concerned? 

Col. Patrick. I feel quite sure that I am warranted in saying that 
the Chief of Engineers coincides with my views. 

Mr. White. At the head of Bois Blanc Island, if the dike is put 
down along the east side of the channel, you said it would throw 
more current there and probably wash away the island. 

Col. Patrick. Any effectual method might be adopted, either by 
riprapping or by a sea wall around the island. 

Mr. White. The riprap would be very much cheaper, I suppose? 

Col. Patrick. Quite probably. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM J. STEWART. 

The Chairman. Mr. Stewart, you were sworn at Detroit, I believe 
in reference to this investigation? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What have you to say as to the practical results 
of the two last plans mentioned ? 

Mr. Stewart. The second one proposed by Col. Patrick would 
check the cross current. It is along tne east side. 

The Chairman. The east side of the Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. Stewart. The east side of the Livingstone Channel. That 
would cut off the greatest current. 

The Chairman. That would prevent them entirely ? 

Mr. Stewart. It would prevent them entirely, I think. The one 
along the west side would pretty nearly eliminate them. I do not 
think it is a very good solution, but it would aid them to a very large 


222 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


extent. I agree with Col. Patrick on that point. One can not tell 
what will happen, but I think it will improve the current. The 
new bank put there will act as a cushion. The water will come against 
that and turn downstream. 

The Chairman. Would it to any extent back the water in the 
current ? 

Mr. Stewart. It will not back it up in the Livingstone Channel. 

The Chairman. But in the course from which it comes; say the 
cross current runs at an angle across the Livingstone Channel, and it 
comes up against this obstruction; would that obstruction have a 
tendency to back the water in the direction from which it came ? 

Mr. Stewart. Very slightly. I think it would raise it a little there, 
but not enough to make it a danger. It would narrow this outlet 
here for the water. Instead of letting the water go out here [indicat¬ 
ing on chart], some of it would have to go out at the northern end of 
the dike, and some of it would have to go around there [indicating]. 

The Chairman. To that extent it would have a tendency to reduce 
the velocity of the cross current, would it not ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think it would reduce the cross current. It would 
not reduce the strength of the current, but it would reduce it as a 
cross current. 

The Chairman. It would not affect a straight current? 

Mr. Stewart. The strength would be there all the same. 

Mr. Streeter. On what did you base your statement a moment 
ago, that you did not think that would be a good solution of the 
difficulty ? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think it would cut it out altogether. With 
all other considerations removed, and just simply with a question of 
putting in a dike to stop that cross current, I would rather put it in 
where it was suggested at first. I think that is a better solution than 
this one. 

Mr. Powell. This last one would be free from all the objections 
that were urged to the first one, that is with respect to pollution and 
all those things ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes, sir. 

* Mr. Casgrain. I suppose you agree with Col. Patrick that the build¬ 
ing of the dike on the west side would materially decrease the danger 
arising from a cross current ? 

Mr. Stewart. Certainly; I think it would materially decrease the 
danger. 

Mr. Turner. In view of the testimony of navigators who passed 
through that channel last year as to the difficulties that they encoun¬ 
tered or did not encounter, do you think this dike on the west side 
would render the channel reasonably safe for navigation ? 

Mr. Stewart. I do; in so much as the dangers are not very bad 
now. I do not consider them very serious dangers, but this would 
decrease them. 

Mr. Streeter. It would largely decrease them ? 

Mr. Stewart. I think it would largely. I do not think it would 
altogether, but I think it would be a great improvement. 

The Chairman. At Detroit, Mr. Stewart, it was your judgment 
that these cross currents were not a serious menace to navigation? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not think they are, Mr. Tawney. 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


223 


Mr. Powell. Supposing, Mr. Stewart, that you dropped floats from 
where the cross current is to some distance to the east of the Living¬ 
stone Channel, and that you dropped them after this dam or dike 
was built, do you think they would find their way substantially into 
the present channel at all? 

Mr. Stewart. I think a good many of them would have to. 

Mr. Powell. Would they go any distance into the present channel ? 

Mr. Stewart. Do you mean into the Livingstone Channel? 

Mr. Powell. Yes; into the Livingstone Channel. 

Mr. Stewart. They would go right through it. 

Mr. Powell. We will take this table to illustrate. Let it be the 
Livingstone Channel and say at the point where the reporter is sitting 
the cross current strikes it. Now, me volume of that current is fixed 
in the Livingstone Channel. You can not squeeze it together and you 
can not compress it without increasing its height. As a matter of 
fact, would not this heavy cunent coming down the Livingstone 
Channel practically deflect the cross current so that it would not enter 
into it to any extent at all ? 

Mr. Stewart. Where would it deflect it ? Part of the water will go 
north of the new dike and most of it has got to go down through 
here [indicating]. 

Mr. Powell. It will go between the Livingstone Channel and Bois 
Blanc Island ? 

Mr. Stewart. There is a very small place to go there, and it is 
shallow water. 

Mr. Powell. You say it is shallow there? 

Mr. Stewart. Very shallow. 

Mr. Powell. About how wide is it ? 

Mr. Stewart. The channel is 300 feet wide, and the distance from 
the channel to the nearest point of Bois Blanc Island would be about 
600 feet. There would be about a thousand feet between the new 
dike and the edge of the channel. The water will have to go through 
that. It will go through there at a pretty good speed. 

Mr. Powell. It increases in velocity in going through there ? 

Mr. Stewart. There will be more cross current close to the present 
cofferdam than there is at present. 

Mr. Turner. Would this shutting off the cross current from the 
west side have a tendency to squeeze out between Bois Blanc Island 
so that more water would go down there ? 

Mr. Stewart. That is nearly all hard bank, rocky bottom, through 
there. 

The Chairman. What have you to say, Mr. Stewart, as to the 
desii ability of the excavation above the Livingstone Channel, just 
immediately above the entrance of the Livingstone Channel, which 
was suggested by Col. Patrick ? 

Mr. Stewart. Considering all the work that the United States Gov¬ 
ernment has done in that locality, and the very efficient manner in 
which it has done it, I am surprised that it has not been done before 
this. 

The Chairman. Can you give any objection on the part of the 
Canadian Government or Canadian interests to the making of that 
excavation ? 

Mr. Stewart. None whatever. I think it highly desirable. I am 
prepared to recommend to the Canadian Government to allow it to 


224 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


be done. Of course, the construction of this original dike here would 
give so much more water up there that it might have the effect of 
inducing some people to make greater diversions. 

Mr. Powell. They would think there was sojne surplus to utilize ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do any of you gentlemen present wish to ask 
Mr. Stewart any questions ? 

Mr. White. I suppose, Mr. Stewart, that you would consider that 
these gentlemen who are diverting water now would consider it as an 
excuse for a further diversion ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

The Chairman. In justice to the Government of the United States, 
and in view of the suggestions contained in these questions, I suppose 
counsel understand that the Government of the United States is now 
prosecuting a case in the United States courts to make the temporary 
injunction permanent prohibiting the taking of anymore water from 
Lake Michigan for the drainage canal at Chicago than was originally 
authorized. 

Mr. White. I am sure that the Government I represent will be 
glad to hear it, but you must remember that these proceedings were 
commenced some years ago. We are accustomed to doing things 
much quicker in our country. I am very glad to be able to report 
that matter, however, to my Government. 

The Chairman. If there is nothing further to offer, gentlemen, the 
hearing with reference to the Livingstone Channel is closed. 

Mr. White. I think really all that counsel can say is contained in 
the statement which we filed in answer to Mr. Livingstone’s memo¬ 
randum. I would like to impress very strongly upon the commis¬ 
sion that it seems to us that that is a document which deserves very 
careful consideration and which strengthens the position that we took 
upon the main question. I would like to say this to the commission: 
That I think your powders and your duties are very much greater than 
some gentlemen appear to imagine. I think you are a body which 
can collate information and report to the respective Governments 
and clean up and place the Governments in a position in which they 
can deal with these matters in a diplomatic manner, and that you can 
do a great good in reporting, especially in this matter, what is of such 
absolutely vital interest to the people on both sides of the line. The 
Government that I represent feels very strongly that now is the criti¬ 
cal point, and you gentlemen have the matter of a very great question 
in your hands. You have the capacity of doing a great deal of good 
which will redound to the benefit of parties on both sides of the line. 

Mr. Streeter. Is this hearing closed now ? 

The Chairman. Unless there is something further to be offered on 
either side. Perhaps Mr. White has something further to say. 

Mr. White. I do not propose to offer any further evidence nor to 
say much more to you. I think you understand and appreciate the 
situation and the feeling that the Government that I am here to repre¬ 
sent has with regard to it. We think that that feeling should be 
shared by the Federal Government here. In other words, to put the 
matter plainly, Mr. Chairman, it is just this w r ay: We think, whether 
we are right or wrong in our construction of the duties and rights of 
this commission, that it has a very important duty to perform in col¬ 
lecting the information and evidence and arriving at conclusions as 


THE LIVINGSTONE CHANNEL. 


225 


to what is best to be done under certain conditions and reporting 
thereon to the Governments, and that then it lies with the Govern¬ 
ment, especially with reference to this inquiry, to take the matter up 
and deal with it. The Government can then deal with the matter 
intelligently, because they will have the information before them. 
That is where, it seems to me, your position is, and that is the advan¬ 
tage that you are to both countries. It is an enormous advantage, 
and I think that the Governments will share that view. 

Mr. MacInnes. I have nothing further to say, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Strickland. I have nothing further from our side. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the commission adjourned.) 


Estimated Cost of Widening Entrance to Livingstone Channel. 

Detroit, Mich., April 5,1913. 

Chairman International Joint Commission, 

Southern Building, Washington, D. C.: 

Estimated cost widening at upper entrance Livingstone Channel, $200,000. 

Patrick, Engineers . 


Detroit, Mich., April 7, 1913. 

Chairman International Joint Commission, 

Washington, D. C.: 

Dike on west side of channel should start about 2,800 feet below cofferdam, be about 
4,400 feet long, of which about 1,200 feet at upper end in American waters; remainder 
on Canadian side of boundary. 

Patrick, Engineers. 


86342—13-15 


o 



























































































































. > 


























w 












* 


*• 


r 







* 





•• 


f 

























\ 





y 















* 








































































































4 









































/ 























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































